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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 76–100 of 171 studies scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 published 2019(page 4 of 7)· 30,580 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 16,054 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.
Overall, this cross-cultural feasibility study in Japanese users demonstrated that the various engagement metrics were significantly correlated, and greater engagement was related to improved nutrition scores and increased time exercising. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·PLoS Medicine·2019-08-02
More frequent social contact at age 60 years was associated with lower dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR] for each SD higher social contact frequency = 0.88 [95% CI 0.79, 0.98], p = 0.02); effect size of the association of social contact at 50 or 70 years with dementia was similar (0.92 [95% CI 0.83, 1.02], p = 0.13 and 0.91 [95% CI 0.78, 1.06], p = 0.23, respectively) but not statistically significant. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2019-09-01
The mean (SD) age of the 842 participants in cohort 1 was 72 (5.6) years, with a range of 59 to 88 years, and 446 (52.5%) were female. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2019-08-20
High and increasing blood pressure from early adulthood into midlife seems to be associated with increased WMHV and smaller brain volumes at 69-71 years of age. 5 key findings →
These two conclusions support a dynamic biomarker model in which Alzheimer's disease is characterized first by the appearance of amyloidosis and later by tauopathy, with tauopathy being the proteinopathy associated with clinical symptoms. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2019-09-10
Dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease dementia, jointly known as Lewy body dementia, are common neurodegenerative conditions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Neurology·2019-07-02
Among Aβ-positive individuals, greater CR related to attenuated clinical progression in predementia stages of AD, but accelerated cognitive decline after the onset of dementia. 2 key findings →
Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which cognitive training via interactive computerised technology was compared with an active or inactive control intervention. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2019-01-07
Coding variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) are associated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2019-12-13
We evaluated the performance of CSF biomarkers for predicting risk of clinical decline and conversion to dementia in non-demented patients with cognitive symptoms. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·PloS one·2019-07-29
The APOE-ε4 allele has long been associated with increased risks of Alzheimer's disease and mortality, but the effect of the less prevalent APOE-ε2 allele on diseases in the elderly and survival remains elusive. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2019-07-03
A deep learning algorithm based on patient demographic information and longitudinal clinical notes appeared to show promising results in predicting mortality among patients with dementia in different time frames. 3 key findings →
All 23 were able to articulate their end-of-life wishes very or somewhat coherently during the SPIRIT session; of those, 14 PWDs had moderate dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2019-08-02
The final cohort included 27 243 nursing home residents with advanced dementia (19 363 [71.1%] women) who died between June 1, 2010, and March 31, 2015, at the median (interquartile range) age of 88 (83-92) years. 3 key findings →
Our study found that midlife stage 1 and stage 2 systolic hypertension is associated with increased risk of AD by 18 and 25%, respectively, although no association was found for diastolic hypertension. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Drugs & aging·2019-03-01
The same daily ACB score was associated with a different degree of risk, depending on the ACB ratings of the individual drugs comprising the score. 5 key findings →
In our final study sample (N = 21,558), significant difference in survival among index AD medication groups were observed with donepezil being associated with better survival than memantine, and oral and transdermal forms of rivastigmine for both ITT and as-treated analysis. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA·2019-06-01
Analyses measured the associations between predictor variables and the memory score, and whether AT(N) biomarker profiles significantly improved prediction of memory z score rates of change beyond a model with clinical and genetic variables only. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2019-10-01
These were compared with the prevalence of 3 clinically defined diagnostic groups (mild cognitive impairment or dementia, dementia, and clinically defined probable Alzheimer disease). 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.