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 1,076–1,100 of 2,047 studies published 2026(page 44 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.
Understanding dementia beliefs among Vietnamese people is crucial for the development of evidence-based interventions to promote positive help-seeking behaviors when facing the risk of dementia for themselves and their relatives. 3 key findings →
BackgroundAlzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) affect nearly half of assisted living (AL) residents, the majority of whom have palliative care (PC) needs at the end of life (EOL). 5 key findings →
This Journal is not only a new publication but also the culmination of a shared vision and a timely response to one of the most significant demographic shifts in human history: the rapid aging of the South Asian population. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·European Psychiatry·2026-06-01
The behavioural and mental health needs of people with PWS result from the interactions between biological vulnerabilities associated with having PWS and living in a changing and demanding environment. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·University of Chicago·2026-06-04
Dementia risk is influenced by biological and lifestyle factors as well as broader socioeconomic conditions; however, the extent to which socioeconomic deprivation creates structural exposures that affect cognitive aging remains unclear. 4 key findings →
Geographical differences in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) prevalence may be driven by under-diagnosis due to insufficient healthcare access. 2 key findings →
Anemia and iron deficiency are common in older adults, yet their relevance to blood biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD) remains underappreciated. 5 key findings →
12.05.2026: Debatt - En enkel blodprøve kan nå påvise fosforylert tau-protein 217 (p-tau217) – et biologisk tegn på Alzheimers sykdom, som kan være til stede mange år før de første symptomene viser seg. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Clinical Chemistry·2026-04-21
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia globally and is defined by the presence of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles formed by the accumulation of phosphorylated tau (p-tau). 2 key findings →
Synthetic images were visually consistent, producing plausible negative and positive patterns while preserving continuity in the sagittal plane. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) destroys brain cells and the patient’s memory is lost as a result of a progressive and incurable neurodegenerative disease. 2 key findings →
Vascular dementia (VaD), a primary cognitive disorder caused by cerebrovascular pathology, features significant white matter damage from chronic cerebral hypoperfusion strongly correlated with cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Tauopathies are a group of neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and progressive supranuclear palsy, characterized by the pathological accumulation of tau protein. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Geriatric Nursing·2026-02-27
Six key themes were identified: Inadequate preparation, guidance and access to appropriate resources; Taboo and misunderstanding: talking about death; Dementia as a terminal illness and the role of palliative care; Key time points, critical events and decisions; Planning ahead not in reality; Family issues and dynamics. 5 key findings →
Excess salt intake is one of the relevant dietary determinants of elevated blood pressure and hypertension, with a direct impact on cardiovascular risk. 2 key findings →
In conclusion, while differing in healthcare infrastructure, China, Japan, and South Korea converge in anchoring dementia care within the community. 1 key finding →
A 77-year-old woman with mild cognitive impairment was referred to 18F-florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) to assess the indication of a disease-modifying drug against Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by amyloid-β deposition, tau pathology, synaptic dysfunction, neuronal injury and cerebral atrophy. 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 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.