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 2,047 studies published 2026(page 41 of 82)· 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 33 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-06-09
To evaluate plasma p-tau217 ability to detect pre-symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD) in ethnoracially diverse cognitively normal individuals. 1 key finding →
These findings suggest that sexual differentiation in early life has modest effects on adult development of AD in females, a relationship that appeared stronger in the context of APOE4 . 4 key findings →
Anti-amyloid treatment (AAT) with monoclonal antibodies represents a major therapeutic advance in early Alzheimer disease (AD), but its introduction has important and underappreciated implications for vascular neurology. 5 key findings →
In the pivotal study in the overall population, the treatment showed a difference of −0.45 points between lecanemab and placebo in the adjusted mean change from baseline on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) at 18 months (the primary endpoint). 5 key findings →
Diet and specific nutritional factors, alone and in combination with other lifestyle approaches, have an important role in decreasing the risk for dementia. 2 key findings →
Health disparities in dementia care are amplified among aging multilingual communities relative to their monolingual English-speaking counterparts, as social determinants of health and significant gaps in culturally responsive practice can contribute to misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, and delays in intervention. 2 key findings →
Participants reported routine screening for cognitive impairment only in the context of the Medicare annual wellness visit and generally avoided routine screening because of limited treatment options to support patients, such as poor access to geriatrics/neuropsychiatric services. 5 key findings →
BackgroundWhile transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) shows therapeutic promise for neurological and psychiatric disorders when applied repeatedly, its potential is constrained by multiple laboratory visits. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Archiv der Pharmazie·2026-03-01
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive and complicated neurodegenerative disorder that mostly affects the elderly and is characterized by memory loss, cognitive dysfunction, accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and cholinergic deficits. 1 key finding →
Our findings reinforce the notion of a bidirectional association between epilepsy and AD, providing proof-of-concept that epilepsy, especially late-onset, may be successfully integrated into AD risk frameworks. 5 key findings →
This study demonstrated that selectively targeting PDE4A rescued cognitive and neuropathological deficits in a validated mouse model of AlD. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by synaptic dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Age-related upregulation in microRNA (miR)-204 and downregulation in long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) nuclear enriched abundant transcript 1 (NEAT1) were observed to disrupt Ephrin-B1 (EFNB1)/EphB2 interactions, leading to reduced cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP)/protein kinase A (PKA) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (Akt) signaling pathway activation. 5 key findings →
Importantly, delirium is not merely a transient cognitive fluctuation; it is independently associated with increased short- and long-term mortality, longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and persistent cognitive impairment comparable to mild dementia[4,5]. 5 key findings →
Hexanucleotide repeat expansion in the chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 ( C9orf72 ) gene has been identified as the most common genetic cause of both frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 2 key findings →
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of regular dental scaling by evaluating the association between the frequency of dental scaling and the risk of dementia in individuals with moderate to severe periodontal disease. 2 key findings →
The prevalence of hypertension showed statistically significant spatial clustering (global Moran’s I=0.442, p<.001), with high-high clusters concentrated in rural eup-myeon areas and low-low clusters in urban dong areas. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) disproportionately impact older Black American adults, with diet-related cardiometabolic conditions contributing to increased risk. 1 key finding →
This study aims to analyze the spatial planning and operational strategies of three profile nursing homes in Copenhagen, Denmark-Hørgården, Peder Lykke Center, and Ørestad Plejecenter-and to derive design and operational implications for the development of Korean unit-based long-term care facilities for older adults. 1 key finding →
Reasons for declining included mis-association with hospice, not seeing additional benefit to current care, and reluctance to change current care. 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 27,380 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.