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 9,026–9,050 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 362 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2002-11-04
Levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), a neuroprotective hormone, decrease in serum during aging, whereas amyloid-beta (Abeta), which is involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease, accumulates in the brain. 5 key findings →
This article is a report on a study of the multidimensional predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia using nationally representative data. 1 key finding →
For example, focal temporal lobe dysfunction is associated with a pure amnestic syndrome, very slow decline, with atrophy and neurofibrillary tangles limited largely to the medial temporal region including the entorhinal cortex. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2005-01-01
Intracytoplasmic aggregation of alpha-synuclein protein as Lewy bodies in the brainstem neurons is diagnostic for Parkinson's disease, whereas if this process also occurs in the cortical neurons, it is considered pathognomonic for dementia with Lewy bodies. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·1993-12-01
This longitudinal study of 196 caregiver/care receiver dyads was undertaken to determine the variables predictive of caregiver decision to institutionalize a dependent with dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2017-03-22
Dementia with Lewy bodies is the second most common form of neurodegenerative dementia, yet scarce evidence is available about its prognosis and natural history, which are crucial to inform clinical practice and research. 5 key findings →
Serious events, as indicated by a hospital admission or death, are frequent following the short-term use of antipsychotic drugs in older adults with dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Psychology and aging·2003-09-01
The Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Cargiver Health (REACH) project was designed to test promising interventions for enhancing family caregiving for persons with dementia. 5 key findings →
Elderly co-resident caregivers for stroke and dementia patients experience similar degrees of burden and high levels of psychological morbidity. 4 key findings →
The following strategies helped with implementation of decisions: introducing change slowly; organising legal changes for the carer as well as the patient; involving a professional to persuade the patient to accept services; and emphasising that services optimised, not impeded, independence. 1 key finding →
The estimated total annual costs of dementia in China increased from 0.9 billion United States dollars (US$) in 1990 to US$ 47.2 billion in 2010 and were predicted to reach US$ 69.0 billion in 2020 and US$ 114.2 billion in 2030. 5 key findings →
The Minority Aging Research Study (MARS) is a longitudinal, epidemiologic cohort study of decline in cognitive function and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in older African Americans, with brain donation after death added as an optional component for those willing to consider organ donation. 1 key finding →
There is considerable variation in the phenotypic appearance of individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD), which may translate into differences in disease progression in addition to underlying disease etiology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Stroke·2016-04-07
The prevalence of ICAS in older adults is high, and it could be a target for primary prevention of stroke and dementia in this population. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·1994-01-01
We surveyed 1,545 subjects--recruited into the UK Medical Research Council elderly hypertension treatment trial between 1982 and 1987--to detect incident cases of dementia, identifying 50 cases of dementia, including 31 cases of probable or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Reduced ED attendances in the first wave of the pandemic suggest opportunities for reducing low severity presentations to ED in the future, but also raise the possibility of harm from delayed or missed care. 4 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.