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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 12,426–12,450 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 498 of 1086)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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.
STOPP criteria PIMs, unlike Beers criteria PIMs, are significantly associated with avoidable ADEs in older people that cause or contribute to urgent hospitalization. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2018-12-18
We built and validated a deep learning algorithm predicting the individual diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment who will convert to AD (c-MCI) based on a single cross-sectional brain structural MRI scan. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2024-11-11
Astrocytes are crucial to brain homeostasis, yet their changes along the spatiotemporal progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology remain unexplored. 5 key findings →
In the field of computer-aided Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis, jointly identifying brain diseases and predicting clinical scores using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have attracted increasing attention since these two tasks are highly correlated. 1 key finding →
Community-based, commercially insured, older adults with probable dementia are more likely to take anticholinergics than matched controls. 2 key findings →
More than half of nursing home residents suffer from dementia, which is about 19-fold higher than the prevalence in insured living in the community. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2022-10-17
Asthma, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis were significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia and subtypes, with dose-effect relationships with the severity of allergic diseases. 5 key findings →
While post mortem studies have identified the major cell types and functional systems affected in Alzheimer's disease (AD) the initial sites and molecular characteristics of pathology are still unclear. 1 key finding →
Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest that a disease-aggravating neuroinflammatory process is present at preclinical stages of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
This study was designed to provide information on the prevalence and nature of psychiatric disorders in 497 individuals with Down syndrome. 1 key finding →
Mild cognitively impaired patients with memory plus other cognitive domain deficits, rather than those with pure amnestic MCI, constituted the high-risk group. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2024-03-14
As the leading cause of overall disease burden in the world, with increasing global DALY counts, effective prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation strategies for disorders affecting the nervous system are needed. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2003-12-01
Proneness to experience psychological distress is a risk factor for AD, an effect independent of AD pathologic markers such as cortical plaques and tangles. 3 key findings →
Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) both reflect early changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 3 key findings →
All markers tracked neuropathological severity, with BD p-tau217 having larger fold-changes than p-tau217 but BD p-tau217/Aβ42 enhancing this further. 4 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217 was 57% higher in subjects with at least one APOE ε4 allele, increased with age, was higher in males, and negatively correlated with brain volume measures by magnetic resonance imaging. 4 key findings →
The assay demonstrated strong analytical performance, with repeatability and intermediate precision (%CV < 7%) and an LLoQ of 0.12 pg/mL. 4 key findings →
Movement disorders have been carefully clinically defined, based on clinico-pathological series; however there is often diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, especially in early stage disease. 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.