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 1,001–1,025 of 1,571 studies scoring ≥ 70 out of 100 (page 41 of 63)· 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.
There was a statistically significant increase in the global estimate of cortical tau burden as measured by standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) from baseline to 18 months in amyloid-β+ but not amyloid-β- subjects (least squared mean change in flortaucipir SUVr : 0.0524 ± 0.0085, P < 0.0001 and 0.0007 ± 0.0024 P = 0.7850, respectively), and a significant association between magnitude of SUVr increase and baseline tau burden. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·PloS one·2019-05-29
Subjective caregiver burden is a significant risk factor for depressive symptoms in carers of older people and may precipitate clinical depression. 4 key findings →
12,887 participants were interviewed at baseline. 11,718 were free of dementia, of whom 8137 (69%) were reinterviewed, contributing 34,718 person-years of follow-up. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·JAMA psychiatry·2019-01-01
The study enrolled 181 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.2] years; 114 [63.0%] female): 91 to the intervention arm (depression in later life [DIL] intervention) and 90 to care as usual (CAU). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·Neurology·1999-12-01
The diabetes attributable risk for dementia of 8.8% suggests that diabetes may have contributed to the clinical syndrome in a substantial proportion of all dementia patients. 2 key findings →
The number of years of formal education completed by individuals is positively correlated with their cognitive function throughout adulthood and predicts lower risk of dementia late in life. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-08-01
Our aim was to test the association of vascular risk factor exposure in midlife with progression of MRI markers of brain aging and measures of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2021-11-01
When identifying participants with abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 in the whole cohort, plasma IP-MS-WashU Aβ42/40 showed significantly higher accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90) than LC-MS-Arc Aβ42/40, IA-Elc Aβ42/40, IA-EI Aβ42/40, and IA-N4PE Aβ42/40 (AUC range, 0.69-0.78; P Conclusions and relevance The results from 2 independent cohorts indicate that certain MS-based methods performed better than most of the immunoassays for plasma Aβ42/40 when detecting brain Aβ pathology. 2 key findings →
The relationship between body mass index (BMI) (in midlife and late-life) and dementia was investigated in meta-analyses of 16 articles reporting on 15 prospective studies. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100.·PloS one·2020-11-17
Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes. 2 key findings →
Main results Nine studies (from eight published reports) of 5149 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (however defined) were included in the review. 5 key findings →
Neuroinflammation commences decades before Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical onset and represents one of the earliest pathomechanistic alterations throughout the AD continuum. 4 key findings →
Since the introduction of the first cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) in 1997, most clinicians and probably most patients would consider the cholinergic drugs, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, to be the first line pharmacotherapy for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
As tau aggregation pathology correlates with clinical dementia in Alzheimer's disease (AD), a tau aggregation inhibitor (TAI) could have therapeutic utility. 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.