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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 851–875 of 1,362 studies published 2022(page 35 of 55)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2022-12-09
The major neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are amyloid β (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles (NFT), accompanied by neuroinflammation and neuronal loss. 2 key findings →
This scientific commentary refers to ‘Cerebral amyloid angiopathy interacts with neuritic amyloid plaques to promote tau and cognitive decline’ by Rabin et al. (https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac178). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2022-12-13
An international consensus report in 2019 recommended a classification system for limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic changes (LATE-NC). 1 key finding →
Residents in memory-care assisted living had a lower adjusted risk of hospitalization (risk difference = -1.8 percentage points [P = .014], hazard ratio = 0.93 [0.87-1.00]), a lower risk of nursing-home admission (risk difference = -2.2 percentage points [P < .001], hazard ratio = 0.87 [-.79-0.95]), and a lower risk of a long-term nursing home admission (risk difference = -1.1 percentage points [P < .001], hazard ratio = 0.71 [0.57-0.88]). 2 key findings →
From 2010 to 2016, the incidence and prevalence rates of LBD among Medicare beneficiaries ranged from 0.21%-0.18% and 0.90%-0.83%, respectively. 5 key findings →
Of 439,760 HCV patients, the incidence rate of ADRD was higher in patients with periodontal diseases compared to those without (10.84% versus 9.26%, p < 0.001), and those with periodontal disease developed ADRD earlier compared to those without periodontal disease (13.99 versus 21.60 months, p < 0.001). 3 key findings →
Quantification results using the proposed deep learning-based method showed stronger correlations with the FreeSurfer estimates than SPM-based SN using MRI did. 5 key findings →
Using amyloid PET imaging as a single primary surrogate efficacy measure in Alzheimer's disease immunotherapy trials, as happened when the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab, is unjustified. 1 key finding →
Cardiovascular risk factors and lifestyle factors are associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia in observational studies, and have been targeted by multidomain interventions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·The EPMA journal·2022-11-17
In sub-populations such as diabetes mellitus type 2, proliferative diabetic retinopathy is an independent predictor of ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →
New research shows that disease-associated microglia in neurodegenerative brains present features of elevated phagocytosis, lysosomal functions, and lipid metabolism, which benefit brain repair. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Vaccines·2022-06-14
Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) represent a key component of the tumor microenvironment and are generally associated with immunosuppression and poor prognosis. 4 key findings →
Microglia, the resident phagocytes of the retina, are believed to influence the development of retinopathy, but their exact contributions to vascular integrity and neuronal loss are unknown. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2022-04-29
Technology offers opportunities to support older adults with mild cognitive impairments to remain independent and socially connected, but is often not used. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Biomedicines·2022-06-10
Down syndrome (DS) is a complex genetic condition due to an additional copy of human chromosome 21, which results in the deregulation of many genes. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.