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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,126–1,150 of 15,839 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 46 of 634)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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.
All patients underwent MRI and β-amyloid biomarker testing via 11 C-PiB or cerebrospinal fluid. 18 F-flortaucipir uptake in patients was compared to 53 β-amyloid negative normal controls using voxelwise and pre-specified region of interest approaches. 5 key findings →
We investigated the incidence and extent of Lewy body (LB)-related alpha-synucleinopathy (LBAS) in the olfactory bulb (OB) in 320 consecutive autopsy patients from a general geriatric hospital (mean age, 81.5 +/- 8.5 years). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2016-10-08
Early-phase FBB acquisitions correlate on a relative quantitative and visual level with FDG PET scans, irrespective of the amyloid plaque density assessed in late FBB imaging. 3 key findings →
Physical as well as cognitive training interventions improve specific cognitive functions but effects barely generalize on global cognition. 4 key findings →
These results suggest pairing tDCS with cognitive training enhances functional connectivity and working memory performance in older adults, and thus may hold promise as a method for remediating age-related cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
The results also suggest that grammatical reasoning and episodic memory should be targeted in developing appropriate outcome measures to assess efficacy of future interventions, and in developing cognitive training programmes to prevent or delay cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →
However, the brain plasticity associated with these proposed benefits of combined therapy has not yet been investigated in elderly subjects. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·JMIR serious games·2017-04-18
Overall, enjoyment and acceptance of casual game characteristics was high and significantly above the midpoint of the rating scale for all CVG genres. 5 key findings →
Early and accurate diagnosis of MCI provides a window of opportunity to improve the outcomes using a multimodal management approach including lifestyle risk factor modification and consideration of the multinutrient Souvenaid. 1 key finding →
Comanagement by geriatricians and orthopedic surgeons, combined with standardized care, leads to improved processes and outcomes for patients with hip fractures. 4 key findings →
The low likelihood of patients with cAF in general practice remaining on treatment long-term indicates that not all benefits as observed in clinical trials may be achieved in usual clinical practice. 4 key findings →
Delirium is highly prevalent among persons with AD who are hospitalized and is associated with an increased rate of cognitive deterioration that is maintained for up to 5 years. 5 key findings →
A lower number of teeth are positively related to swallowing dysfunction, whereas denture wearing contributes to recovery of swallowing function. 3 key findings →
Although their prognosis is worse, even the oldest and most severely frail patients may benefit from hospitalization for COVID-19, if sufficient resources are available. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-01-23
This study confirms previous reports of potentially hazardous driving in persons with early Alzheimer disease, but also indicates that some individuals with very mild dementia can continue to drive safely for extended periods of time. 3 key findings →
Our aim was to investigate the long-term prognosis of delirium in the frailest elderly, and to clarify whether delirium is just a marker of the underlying severe disease. 5 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.