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 101–125 of 1,362 studies published 2022(page 5 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-02-07
Over 10 years of close clinical dementia surveillance in this cohort study, loneliness was associated with increased dementia risk; this tripled in adults whose baseline risk would otherwise be relatively low on the basis of age and genetic risk, representing a majority of the US population. 5 key findings →
This analysis of 2-year retrospective cohort studies of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 showed that the increased incidence of mood and anxiety disorders was transient, with no overall excess of these diagnoses compared with other respiratory infections. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2022-05-02
Compared with no sensory impairment, DSI was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.60; 95% CI, 1.66-2.06; P Conclusions and relevance In this cohort study, DSI was associated with increased risk of dementia, particularly AD. 5 key findings →
Common genetic variance in apolipoprotein E (APOE), β-glucocerebrosidase (GBA), microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT), and α-synuclein (SNCA) has been linked to cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease (PD), although studies have yielded mixed results. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-07-06
DNA methylation algorithms are increasingly used to estimate biological aging; however, how these proposed measures of whole-organism biological aging relate to aging in the brain is not known. 4 key findings →
Current evidence shows that plasma p-tau217 is a sensitive maker of the clinical manifestation and progression of Alzheimer's disease and of pathological changes associated with this condition, including amyloid accumulation, tau burden, brain atrophy and physical degradation. 3 key findings →
Lower CSF Aβ42, and higher t-tau/Aβ42 and p-tau/Aβ42 ratios were associated with BDI-II and BAI total scores, clinical depression (BDI-II ≥ 13), and clinical anxiety (BAI ≥ 10), as well as NPI-Q-assessed anxiety, apathy, and nighttime behavior. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Systematic reviews·2022-01-06
To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis of narrowly defined CCT across clinical populations with depression. 3 key findings →
CL was associated with syndromic (F = 4.42, p = 0.014) and etiological diagnosis (F = -12.66, p < 0.001), with Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients showing the highest amyloid burden (62.9 ± 27.5), followed by dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) (25.3 ± 35.5) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (16.7 ± 24.5), and finally frontotemporal lobe degeneration (FTLD) (5.0 ± 17.22, t = -12.66, p < 0.001). 4 key findings →
The results showed that intestinal expression of GLP-1 1 could reduce the intestinal pathogenic genus such as Enterobacteriaceae and was obviously associated with a greater number of beneficial genera such as Lactobacillus and Akkermansia. 4 key findings →
We identified 1,994 records in five different databases; after exclusion of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and full-text retrieval, 122 studies were finally included. 5 key findings →
After 12 weeks, maintenance of executive functioning in the TG was found, yet no significant changes on circulating neurotrophins levels were identified. 3 key findings →
Sleep duration had an inverted U-shape relationship with cognitive scores (P <.001); and sleep quality had a positive linear relationship with cognitive scores (P <.001). 5 key findings →
The present study showed that higher educational levels were related to better general cognitive function, executive function, memory, and information processing speed in PD patients, whereas no significant association was showed between educational levels and visuospatial function, language in PD patients. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Public health·2022-10-03
In total, 20 articles were selected for review; 18 included results on the long-term effects of PM2.5 on dementia, 13 on AD, and eight on VaD. 5 key findings →
Our sample included 3,361,950 Medicare enrollees with ADRD (2,156,995 women [64%]; mean [SD] age, 83 [8.0] years; 2,646,405 white [78%], 344,478 black [10%], 224,010 Hispanic [7%]). 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 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.