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 1,176–1,200 of 1,212 studies published 2019(page 48 of 49)· 27,380 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; 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.
Ageing is a major risk factor for the development of many diseases, prominently including neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease. 1 key finding →
Pain is a subjective experience, unfortunately, some patients cannot provide a self-report of pain verbally, in writing, or by other means. 4 key findings →
In 2017, the 10 leading causes of death were, in rank order: Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Cerebrovascular diseases; Alzheimer disease; Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Intentional self-harm (suicide). 1 key finding →
As the median age of the population increases, the number of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the associated socio-economic burden are predicted to worsen. 1 key finding →
Overall, the application of ML to mental health has demonstrated a range of benefits across the areas of diagnosis, treatment and support, research, and clinical administration. 4 key findings →
Direct measurements of lysosomal pH uncovered a significant elevation (0.6 units) as a basis for slowed LC3 turnover and the inactivation of cathepsin D and other lysosomal hydrolases known to be unstable or less active when lysosomal pH is persistently elevated. 2 key findings →
The pathogenesis of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) mainly involves abnormal accumulation of extracellular β-amyloid (Aβ) and the consequent neurotoxic effects. 4 key findings →
Synaptic loss is the best surrogate for cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease (AD) and is more closely associated with cognitive function than amyloid or tau pathologies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2019-08-26
The smart device system to monitor tremors and to recognize its phenotypes for better outcomes of deep brain stimulation, applications evaluating fine motor functions, AI integrated electroencephalogram learning to diagnose epilepsy and psychological non-epileptic seizure, predict outcome of seizure surgeries, recognize patterns of autonomic instability to prevent sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), identify the pattern of complex algorithm in neuroimaging classifying cognitive impairment, differentiating and classifying concussion phenotypes, smartwatches monitoring atrial fibrillation to prevent strokes, and prediction of prognosis in dementia are unique examples of experimental utilizations of AI in the field of neurology. 1 key finding →
The effect of austerity and associated budgets are strong contenders,3Ruckert A Labonté R Health inequities in the age of austerity: the need for social protection policies. 3 key findings →
In 2017, the United Nations reported that the world's population aged 60 years and over was 962 million people, over twice as many older persons than was reported in 1980. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Not indexed·2019-03-01
OpenStreetMap provides a valuable crowd-sourced database of raw geospatial data for constructing models of urban street networks for scientific analysis. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Journal of Diabetes·2019-08-21
She presented compelling data that showed the vastly improved ease of use and overall satisfaction of nasal glucagon vs its injectable counterpart. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Urban Science·2019-03-01
OpenStreetMap provides a valuable crowd-sourced database of raw geospatial data for constructing models of urban street networks for scientific analysis. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100.·Der Nervenarzt·2019-09-01
In accordance with the current German dementia guidelines, the dementia biomarkers amyloid beta 42, the tau peptides total tau and phosphorylated tau 181 are recommended for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-based diagnostics of dementia. 3 key findings →
The Healthy Brain Initiative: The Public Health Road Map for State and National Partnerships was recently updated for years 2018-2022, which includes recommendations for implementing emergency preparedness (EP) measures at the state and local levels with attention to the unique needs of people living with Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias (ADRD). 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 27,380 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.