You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.
Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat.Text: 646-586-5283
In a medical emergency, call 911.
More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 826–850 of 1,356 studies published 2021(page 34 of 55)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.
We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.
Diabetes, elevated fasting glucose, central obesity, and heart age greater than chronological age were associated with rate of decline in processing speed during midlife. 3 key findings →
The scientific literature is scarce when referring to the influence of atmospheric pollutants on neurodegenerative diseases for present and future climate change scenarios. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2021-10-25
TDP-43 proteinopathy is linked to neurodegenerative diseases that feature synaptic loss in the cortex and hippocampus, although it remains unclear how TDP-43 regulates mature synapses. 2 key findings →
Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a well-established astrocytic biomarker for the diagnosis, monitoring and outcome prediction of traumatic brain injury (TBI). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·JAMIA open·2021-07-01
Identifying individuals at risk for progression of AD dementia could potentially help to personalize disease management to plan future care. 3 key findings →
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) is a transmembrane receptor of the immunoglobulin superfamily and a crucial signaling hub for multiple pathological pathways that mediate immunity. 4 key findings →
The importance of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway signaling in regulating microglia-mediated neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Cell reports·2021-12-01
Non-neuronal responses in neurodegenerative disease have received increasing attention as important contributors to disease pathogenesis and progression. 4 key findings →
Secretases are a group of proteases that are major drug targets considered for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Microglia are key in the homeostatic well-being of the brain and microglial dysfunction has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
PET of β-Amyloid plaques (Aβ) using [ 18 F ] florbetaben ( [ 18 F ] FBB) and [ 18 F ] fluorodeoxyglucose ( [ 18 F ] FDG) increasingly aid clinicians in early diagnosis of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and vascular dementia. 4 key findings →
Five overarching themes derived from the interviews were as follows: (a) My life still has value and meaning, (b) I am my own unique individual, (c) I place my trust in other people, (d) The future worries me, and (e) I accept and embrace what life brings. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2021-10-16
Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →
The agreement between the two measures of dementia differed by age: in 2017, 79.2% of hospital claims for patients aged 66–74 had a diagnosis of dementia compared to older age categories that had dementia noted in over 85% of records. 5 key findings →
The county clusters with the highest and lowest AD mortality rates were in Washington (WA) and New York (NY), respectively, with other notable high-mortality clusters on the border of Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama as well as in North Dakota and South Dakota. 5 key findings →
To assess whether home health agencies incur significantly higher care delivery costs for patients with cognitive impairment across three timeframes relevant to home health payment policy. 2 key findings →
Limited data suggest nursing home (NH) Alzheimer's special care units (ASCUs) may improve care and outcomes among residents with dementia. 5 key findings →
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription
label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.
Show only studies that are free to read
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor,
and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a
scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the
difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself,
so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
Journal tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup to 2 pts
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we
could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be
worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science,
Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed
journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the
tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a
missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores
zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and
the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed
article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or
a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not
work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by
that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is
reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out →
— four charts covering all 27,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap
bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on
stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of
it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here,
that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,032 records (3.8% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any
journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card
on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a
peer-reviewed article.