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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 851–875 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 35 of 1086)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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.
Exercise training increases fitness, physical function, cognitive function, and positive behavior in people with dementia and related cognitive impairments. 3 key findings →
There is very limited evidence that exercise improves cognitive function in individuals with MCI, although published research is of moderate quality and inconclusive due to low statistical power. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-07-03
Impaired odor identification, particularly in the anosmic range, is associated with increased mortality in older adults even after controlling for dementia and medical comorbidity. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·Ophthalmology·2021-02-27
Topic Visual impairment (VI) and cognitive impairment (CIM) are prevalent age-related conditions that impose substantial burden on the society. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·Brain communications·2021-06-14
Mixed-effect models assessed rates of memory decline in relation to baseline plasma p-tau181, and whether plasma p-tau181 significantly predicted memory decline beyond widely available clinical and genetic data (age, sex, years of education, cardiovascular and metabolic conditions, and APOE ε 4 status). 5 key findings →
However, because these biomarkers are strongly associated with the emergence of Aβ pathology, it is difficult to determine the contribution of insoluble tau aggregates to the plasma p-tau signal in blood. 5 key findings →
PTau217R reliably predicts regional tau accumulation in early AD, reducing reliance on tau PET scans and broadening its clinical application. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2021-08-05
Application of biological age as a measure of an individual´s health status offers new perspectives into extension of both lifespan and healthspan. 4 key findings →
Weight loss predicts AD CSF and PET biomarker results and may occur downstream to amyloid-β accumulation in preclinical AD, paralleling cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
As the field moves towards primary prevention, we expect an increase in the use of fluid-based biomarkers to determine disease modification. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.·The Lancet·2023-09-02
This randomized trial gave hearing aids plus counseling, or only general health education, to 977 older adults with untreated hearing loss, then tracked cognition for three years. 4 key findings →
In two randomized crossover studies involving 48 healthy, cognitively normal adults (registered on ClinicalTrials.gov), researchers measured brain and blood markers after normal sleep versus sleep deprivation. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-11-14
This randomized trial of 406 spouse caregivers of people with Alzheimer's tested whether counseling and support (six counseling sessions, mandatory support groups, and on-call phone counseling) could delay nursing home placement. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.·PLOS ONE·2024
This meta-analysis pooled 14 studies of the Mini-Cog, a 3-minute memory-and-clock-drawing test doctors can give in a routine visit, to see how well it catches dementia. 5 key findings →
Pooling 29 studies and over 2 million people, this meta-analysis found that people who were more physically active, especially at moderate-to-vigorous intensity, had a notably lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, though the protective association was stronger in studies with shorter follow-up periods. 4 key findings →
For music-based therapeutic interventions compared to usual care, we found moderate-certainty evidence that, at the end of treatment, music-based therapeutic interventions probably improved depressive symptoms slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to -0.04; 9 studies, 441 participants), and we found low-certainty evidence that it may have improved overall behavioural problems (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.02; 10 studies, 385 participants). 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.