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 1,101–1,125 of 1,362 studies published 2022(page 45 of 55)· 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.
Drug repositioning or repurposing is the process of discovering leading-edge indications for authorized or declined/abandoned molecules for use in different diseases. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Theranostics·2022-03-06
Aging is a natural process, which plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of a variety of diseases, i.e., aging-related diseases, such as diabetes, osteoarthritis, Alzheimer disease, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, obesity and other metabolic abnormalities. 4 key findings →
Microtubule affinity regulating kinase 4 (MARK4) regulates the mechanism of microtubules by its ability to phosphorylate the microtubule-associated proteins (MAP's). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Bipolar disorders·2022-09-13
The adjusted model showed a significant inverse association of lithium levels with female, but not with male, or total prevalence of AD. 2 key findings →
Repositioning or repurposing drugs account for a substantial part of entering approval pipeline drugs, which indicates that drug repositioning has huge market potential and value. 1 key finding →
The multi-site ubiquitination of Tau protein found in Alzheimer's disease filaments hints at the failed attempt of neurons to remove early toxic species. 1 key finding →
Two potential disease-modifying approaches for dementia are being vigorously tested: the early targeting of the neuropathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and multi-domain lifestyle interventions to promote resilience to neuropathology. 2 key findings →
Given the unknown therapeutic value of targeting Alzheimer's disease pathology and the discovery of robust risk factors for dementia, non-pharmacological risk reduction (RR) is increasingly offered as an alternative to targeting Alzheimer's disease pathology. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2022-05-25
Since environmental, socioeconomic, and individual risk factors contribute to dementia, we proposed a Comprehensive, Customized, Cost-effective APProach (the CCC-APP) implemented in actionable units with the focus on promoting brain health (eumentia). 5 key findings →
Patients suffering from neurodegenerative conditions frequently report sleep complaints, such as insomnia and excessive daytime sleepiness. 2 key findings →
Our aim was to determine whether the genetic liability to sleep and pain-related traits have a causal effect on risk of neurodegeneration in individuals of predominantly European ancestry. 2 key findings →
Sleep plays an important role in homeostasis, brain plasticity, clearance of neurotoxins, cognition, memory, concentration, performance, and the regulation of the temperature, endocrine and immunological systems. 5 key findings →
Several studies identified hearing loss as a risk factor for aging-related processes, including neurodegenerative diseases, as dementia and age-related hearing loss (ARHL). 1 key finding →
The progressive aging of the population will notably increase the burden of those diseases which leads to a disabling situation, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and ophthalmological diseases that cause a visual impairment (VI). 1 key finding →
Diabetes is among the most prevalent diseases of the modern world and is strongly linked to an increased risk of numerous neurodegenerative disorders, although the exact pathophysiological mechanisms are not clear yet. 2 key findings →
Associations were found between times spent in (i) a "weakly connected" state and lower self-reported engagement in early- and mid-life cognitive activity and higher LDL cholesterol; (ii) a "SN-negatively connected" state and higher blood pressure, higher depression score, and lower body mass index (BMI); (iii) a "strongly connected" state and higher self-reported engagement in early-life cognitive activity, Preclinical Alzheimer's cognitive composite-5 score, and BMI; and (iv) a "DMN-negatively connected" state and higher self-reported engagement in early- and mid-life stimulating activities and lower LDL cholesterol and blood pressure. 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 27,780 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.