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 926–950 of 2,355 studies scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 (page 38 of 95)· 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.
Compared with UC, CCT increased scores on the MDRS's total, attention, and memory and those on the Mini-Mental State Examination and Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status over the 6-month intervention; TC increased scores on the MDRS's total and conceptualization and those on the Mini-Mental State Examination over the 6-month intervention, while it also increased scores on the MDRS's total and initiation/preservation and those on the Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status and reduced the time to complete the Trail Making Test B over the 12-month study. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2023-05-18
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of Alzheimer's disease are predominantly carried out in European ancestry individuals despite the known variation in genetic architecture and disease prevalence across global populations. 1 key finding →
The study included 524,975 older adults with dementia who were incident users of ChEIs (donepezil 80.72%, rivastigmine 16.41%, galantamine 2.87%). 5 key findings →
Twenty-one depressed patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) were randomized to receive a 6-week treatment with clomipramine or placebo in a study with a double-blind crossover design. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.·Neurology·1990-07
We carried out a double-blind study of a vasopressin-related peptide, DGAVP citrate (Org 5667), in 115 patients with mild dementia, probable Alzheimer's type (DAT). 2 key findings →
Seventeen risk/protective factors met criteria for the algorithm to estimate risk for any dementia including age, sex, education, hypertension, midlife obesity, midlife high cholesterol, diabetes, insufficient physical activity, depression, traumatic brain injury, atrial fibrillation, smoking, social engagement, cognitive engagement, fish consumption (diet), stroke, and insomnia. 5 key findings →
Females with MCI exhibited greater baseline GMV than males primarily in the thalamus, caudate, cerebellum, postcentral gyrus, and middle cingulate gyrus, with no differences at the AD stage. 3 key findings →
Baseline subjective cognitive decline and low cognitive reserve significantly increased the risk of dementia, after 2 years of follow-up. 5 key findings →
Late-life depression (LLD), compared to depression at a young age, is more likely to have poor prognosis and high risk of progression to dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2023-09-05
Among 27 857 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline, 61 [10] years; 15 747 female participants [56.5%]; 19 249 non-Hispanic White participants [69.1%]), 4105 (14.7%) developed dementia during the follow-up period (mean [SD], 10.2 [5.6] years). 5 key findings →
In LATE-NC individuals, progression along data-driven stages was positively associated with age, but negatively associated with age in individuals with FTLD-TDP. 3 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.