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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 10,351–10,375 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 415 of 1086)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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 50 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2009-12-23
Insulin resistance (IR) is the main pathological condition underlying vascular disorders, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which are well established risk factors for cognitive decline and Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Accumulating evidence suggests that genetic variants in the SORL1 gene are associated with Alzheimer disease (AD), but a strategy to identify which variants are pathogenic is lacking. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-03-01
In the oldest old, the presence of the APOE epsilon2 allele (APOE2) was associated with a somewhat reduced risk of dementia, but paradoxically was associated with increased Alzheimer disease (AD) neuropathology. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Nature communications·2020-09-04
The molecular signatures of cells in the brain have been revealed in unprecedented detail, yet the ageing-associated genome-wide expression changes that may contribute to neurovascular dysfunction in neurodegenerative diseases remain elusive. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-05-01
The NBV significantly correlated with all clinical scores (Rankin, NIH Stroke Scale, Barthel, structured interview for the diagnosis of Alzheimer dementia and multi-infarct dementia, Mattis dementia rating scale) at both time points independently of age and sex. 2 key findings →
Several studies have shown that cognitive intervention may be beneficial for people with Alzheimer disease (AD), but literature reviews conducted so far, have yielded mixed and inconclusive results. 3 key findings →
Tensions exist between abstract ethical principles regarding decision-making "standards" and their translation into research decisions. 3 key findings →
This paper is based on a presentation made during the Indiana Alzheimer Disease Center's Symposium on Mild Cognitive Impairment on April 19, 2008. 3 key findings →
Physostigmine demonstrated a statistically significant benefit compared with placebo on a clinical global rating of change and an objective test of cognitive function. 3 key findings →
The neuroprotective glial cell modulator propentofylline has been used in clinical trials involving more than 800 patients with vascular dementia (VaD). 3 key findings →
Studies suggest that reminiscence strategies combined with an intergenerational approach may yield significant social and mental health benefits for participants. 4 key findings →
The mindfulness based neuropsychological program showed better cognitive and functional stability, as well as significant improvement in the psychopathological condition of mild to moderate Alzheimer' patients. 3 key findings →
More open debates of practical experiences from different trial centres and sponsors are essential for optimizing trial designs and improving conditions for participants. 2 key findings →
Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, colon cancer, breast cancer, dementia and depression constitute a cluster of diseases, which defines 'a diseasome of physical inactivity'. 2 key findings →
The hippocampus is particularly vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects of obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypoxic brain injury, obstructive sleep apnoea, bipolar disorder, clinical depression and head trauma. 1 key finding →
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.