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 2,047 studies published 2026(page 4 of 82)· 27,380 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; 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.
Alzheimer's disease and coronary artery disease are common late-life chronic conditions and share multiple risk factors, including the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2026-05-01
In this multicenter randomized clinical trial among older adults with family history of dementia and/or self-reported subjective cognitive decline, exercise, IRVR, or both did not result in statistically significant differences in improvements in cognitive function over 24 months. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-01-28
Among 11 601 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.18 [9.41] years; 5569 male [48.0%]), 9145 (78.8%) were exposed to at least 1 ACE indicator, 4241 (36.6%) to at least 1 AAE indicator, and 3531 (30.4%) to both ACE and AAE markers. 5 key findings →
These findings provide no evidence of a group-level Alzheimer-related p-tau217 elevation in young people with DSRD and support DSRD as a condition distinct from Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-01-29
One hundred eighty-seven participants with brain autopsy (NPDx1: AD n = 85; other n = 102; mean age: 74.3 years, 38.5% female; interval blood collection-death [mean ± SD]: 2.8 ± 1.6 years) and 67 NC without brain autopsy (mean age: 66.5 years, 71.6% female) were included. pTau217, but not GFAP, levels increased stepwise with increasing Thal phases (β = 0.61; 95% CI [0.24-0.97] to β = 0.91 [0.55-1.27]) and Braak stages (β = 0.59; [0.16-1.01] to β = 0.74 [0.33-1.15]). 5 key findings →
A recent randomized trial demonstrated clear cerebrospinal-fluid DHA target engagement without detectable improvement in cognition or brain volume over 24 months. 5 key findings →
End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →
The causes of late onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) are not known but several recent lines of evidence implicate the adaptive immune system. 3 key findings →
ARIA were infrequent. In donanemab-treated patients, mildly symptomatic ARIA-E occurred in 10% (2/20) and asymptomatic ARIA-H in 15% (3/20). 5 key findings →
The NPTX2/p-tau ratio enhanced diagnostic performance of standalone NPTX2 and p-tau, particularly for DLB and FTLDrs (area under the curve [AUC]NPTX2/p-tau = 0.78-0.79 vs. AUCNPTX2 = 0.63-0.70 and AUCp-tau = 0.59-0.75), and was more strongly associated with cognition. 4 key findings →
ARIA-E incidence was 2.0% in non-carriers and 6.2% in εε4/εε4 homozygotes (εε4/εε4-versus-non-carrier OR 3.25, versus 8.49 in Clarity AD and 8.32 in Japan post-marketing surveillance). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-04-01
This pilot randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of LMH-4-DCP in reducing caregiver grief, with improvements in caregiver-care recipient relationship quality. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2026-06-01
This study found that a high-intensity multidomain lifestyle intervention did not affect brain biomarker trajectories and was not associated with Aβ pathology, but older adults with specific at-risk brain characteristics, including lower baseline HC volume, showed a greater cognitive benefit of the structured intervention. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-05-20
Smoking cessation was associated with a sustained lower dementia risk and slower cognitive decline, comparable to never smokers and those without short-term risk increase. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2026-03-01
In the UGOT cohort, the optimal cutoff improved diagnostic accuracy compared with the standard single cutoff, particularly in CKD and anemia (CKD: from 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72; to 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; anemia: from 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84; to 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90), with consistent findings in the Roche cohort. 4 key findings →
A brief DMA combined with plasma pTau217 identifies a subset of cognitively unimpaired, amyloid-positive older adults at highest risk for cognitive and biomarker progression. 2 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.