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 1,227 studies published 2019(page 38 of 50)· 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.
Deep neural networks have led to state-of-the-art results in many medical imaging tasks including Alzheimer's disease (AD) detection based on structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. 2 key findings →
Database linkage to Medicare claims records is an efficient and reasonably accurate tool to identify dementia cases in a population-based cohort. 3 key findings →
OCT measurements did show significant decrease in temporal, nasal, inferiorR (R means examination of retina in two sections as superior and inferior instead of four quadrants) RNFL thickness and foveal, parafoveal, macular thickness of AD group compared to control group. 5 key findings →
Dementia-friendly designs are important in residential care homes but an aspect that remains neglected is the potential role of door designs in promoting wayfinding. 1 key finding →
Hearing loss affects close to 1.3 billion people and is a growing global health concern as the fourth leading contributor to years lived with disability. 1 The global economic cost associated with hearing loss is estimated at 750 billion United States dollars (US$) annually.2 However, hearing loss has limited public health support, especially in low-and middle-income countries, where incidence is high and resources often scarce and unequally distributed.
The system uses a collected dataset of 1928 records, taken from 11 HD patients and 11 healthy persons in Lithuania, to gather statistics about examinations and presents the results as medical evaluation with prediction on the state of health. 5 key findings →
Hundreds of proteins are known to be citrullinated and hypercitrullination is associated with autoimmune diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, ulcerative colitis (UC), Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), and certain cancers. 4 key findings →
In BriefIn the search for biomarkers of synapse loss associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), we used shotgun proteomics to identify a panel of 9 synaptic proteins detectable in human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).Expression at the human synapse was verified using super resolution microscopy. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Genome biology·2019-06-03
We devise a conceptually different computational framework based on a holistic view, where single-cell datasets are used to infer global, large-scale regulatory networks. 4 key findings →
In MCI/AD, both the CSF and serum samples had significantly elevated mean levels of C-peptide and an incretin, and reduced expression of Visfatin, whereas only CSF showed significant reductions in insulin and leptin and only serum had increased glucagon, PAI-1, and ghrelin. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2019-08-14
To understand the role of commensal gut bacteria on the progression of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease via the microbiota-gut-brain axis, we isolated anti-inflammatory Bifidobacterium longum (NK46) from human gut microbiota, which potently inhibited gut microbiota endotoxin production and suppressed NF-κB activation in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated BV-2 cells, and examined whether NK46 could simultaneously alleviate gut dysbiosis and cognitive decline in male 5xFAD-transgenic (5XFAD-Tg, 6 months-old) and aged (18 months-old) mice. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neurology and therapy·2019-12-12
The development of blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology as tools for screening the general population, and as the first step in a multistep process to determine which non-demented individuals are at greatest risk of developing AD dementia, is essential. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·The Hearing Journal·2019-04-01
Despite the increasing national attention being given to the risks posed by unidentified and untreated hearing loss, stakeholders—including primary care physicians, caregivers, and patients—have yet to make any significant progress in improving earlier recognition of hearing loss. 3 key findings →
Prior research suggests that both exergaming and virtual reality (VR)-based training programs could improve executive functions in older adults. 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.