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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 76–100 of 1,079 studies published 2017(page 4 of 44)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 12,859 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 71 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2017-02-28
More than 20 genetic loci have been associated with risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but reported genome-wide significant loci do not account for all the estimated heritability and provide little information about underlying biological mechanisms. 5 key findings →
Addition of CAT to the PACC provides unique information about early cognitive decline not currently captured by the episodic memory, executive function, and global cognition components and may therefore improve detection of early Aβ-related cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA Psychiatry·2017-08-25
A total of 73 731 patients with dementia and 733 653 controls (median age, 80.3 years; interquartile range, 74.9-84.6 years; 44 760 female [60.7%] and 28 971 male [39.3%]) were included in the study. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA psychiatry·2017-07-01
Those reporting depressive symptoms in 1985 (mean follow-up, 27 years) did not have significantly increased risk for dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% CI, 0.95-1.54) in Cox regression adjusted for sociodemographic covariates, health behaviors, and chronic conditions. 5 key findings →
The findings of this review provide insight into catalysing the paradigm shift from 'reducing stress' to 'optimising positive experience' in developing caregiving support services for dementia, and may guide future empirical study to explain this unique dimension of caregiving experience. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA psychiatry·2017-03-01
There were 987 participants (290 from Vantaa 85+, 241 from the Cambridge City Over-75s Cohort, and 456 from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study) with neuropathologic data; mean (SD) age at death was 90 (6.4) years, including 682 women (69%). 5 key findings →
Between 2001, and 2012, we identified 243 611 incident cases of dementia, 31 577 cases of Parkinson's disease, and 9247 cases of multiple sclerosis. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2017-10-18
The highly consistent regional hierarchy of PET-evidenced amyloid deposition across participants resembles neuropathologic observations and suggests a predictable regional sequence that may be used to stage an individual's progress of amyloid pathology in vivo. 2 key findings →
ROC curves of the five best two-, three-, and four-parameter combinations were analyzed for significant superiority by a bootstrapping wrapper around a support vector machine with linear kernel. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·PloS one·2017-08-01
Our results suggest that adherence to the MeDi is associated with better cognitive performance and lower dementia rates in Greek elders. 5 key findings →
Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) may help in identifying and monitoring risk status in dementia-prevention programmes, by targeting modifiable, lifestyle-related risk factors. 2 key findings →
Epidemiological studies have identified a robust association between type II diabetes mellitus and Alzheimer disease (AD), and neurobiological studies have suggested the presence of central nervous system insulin resistance in individuals with AD. 3 key findings →
Treatment with the PARO robot decreased stress and anxiety in the treatment group and resulted in reductions in the use of psychoactive medications and pain medications in elderly clients with dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2017-07-10
Of all studies included in this systematic review, results from the highest quality studies, which were two randomized controlled trials, demonstrated that multi-domain CCT could lead to increases in hippocampal functional connectivity. 5 key findings →
Preliminary findings of our pilot study suggested that cognitive decline in psychomotor speed and executive function is possibly prevented by intradialytic CT and ET. 4 key findings →
As aging is associated with cognitive decline, particularly in the executive functions, it is essential to effectively improve cognition in older adults. 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.