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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,026–1,050 of 1,139 studies published 2023(page 42 of 46)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
Over 78 million people will suffer from dementia by 2030, emphasizing the need for early identification of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at risk, and personalized clinical evaluation steps to diagnose potentially reversible causes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·2023-06-16
Hyperphosphorylation of the microtubule-associated protein tau is hypothesized to lead to the development of neurofibrillary tangles in select brain regions during normal aging and in Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The study population of 99,774 individuals had a mean age of 71.0 years and was 49.1% female, 73.9% White, and 17.8% Black, with 62.0% living in an urban setting. 5 key findings →
Our results suggest that the relationship between greater neighborhood disadvantage and poorer cognitive function are very subtle and may only be present for some, but not all, cognitive domains. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Nutrients·2023-06-10
The term neuronutrition has been proposed as part of nutritional neuroscience, studying the effects of various dietary components on behavior and cognition. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neurologic clinics·2023-05-01
Reviewing the research presented in this article, it is evident that from an epidemiological perspective, it is important to evaluate the extent to which findings of sex and gender differences in Alzheimer's dementia (AD) are due to differences in longevity, survival bias, and comorbidities. 1 key finding →
The worldwide burden of dementia is immense, and set to increase to unprecedented levels in the coming decades, due to population aging. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·BMC digital health·2023-02-14
Early detection of age-related cognitive decline has transformative potential to advance the scientific understanding of cognitive impairments and possible treatments by identifying relevant participants for clinical trials. 1 key finding →
At least 40% of all dementia has been linked to modifiable risk factors suggesting a clear potential for preventative approaches targeting these factors. 1 key finding →
Blood pressure is not a static parameter, but rather undergoes continuous fluctuations over time, as a result of the interaction between environmental and behavioural factors on one side and intrinsic cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms on the other side. 2 key findings →
Amyloid and tau biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease are widely recognized diagnostic tools for the identification of Alzheimer's disease pathology antemortem and are recommended by the most recent clinical and research guidelines. 3 key findings →
An unmet need exists for reliable plasma biomarkers of amyloid pathology, in the clinical laboratory setting, to streamline diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Cell·2023-10-16
Alzheimer's disease (AD) research has entered a new era with the recent positive phase 3 clinical trials of the anti-Aβ antibodies lecanemab and donanemab. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Drugs·2023-03-01
Lecanemab (lecanemab-irmb; LEQEMBI™) is a humanized immunoglobulin gamma 1 (IgG1) against aggregated soluble and insoluble forms of amyloid-β peptide. 5 key findings →
Currently, three antibeta amyloid (Aβ) mAbs are approved or under examination in USA and in Europe for the treatment of patients with early Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Epidemiological evidence has revealed a link between AD/PD and type 2 diabetes mellitus, with these disorders sharing some pathological commonalities. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.