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 1,226–1,250 of 1,356 studies published 2021(page 50 of 55)· 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.
Obesity is related to quantitative neuroimaging abnormalities including reduced gray matter volumes and impaired white matter microstructural integrity, although the underlying mechanisms are not well understood. 4 key findings →
In the current study, we aimed to develop an algorithm based on biomarkers obtained through non- or minimally invasive procedures to identify healthy elderly subjects who have an increased risk of abnormal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta42 (Aβ) levels consistent with the presence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →
According to the FDA, aducanumab (Aduhelm), the recently approved anti-Alzheimer drug, reduces the level of cerebral amyloid plaques-a hallmark finding in patients with Alzheimer's disease-and this will result in a reduction in clinical decline. 1 key finding →
Neighborhood characteristics may play an influential role in SCD regardless of race/ethnicity and thus are likely important risk factors for AD/ADRD. 2 key findings →
We found that both Adu and SUS reduced the total plaque area in the hippocampus to a similar degree, with no additive effect in the combination treatment (SUS+Adu). 5 key findings →
Breakthroughs in the development of highly accurate fluid and neuroimaging biomarkers have catalysed the conceptual transformation of Alzheimer disease (AD) from the traditional clinical symptom-based definition to a clinical-biological construct along a temporal continuum. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neuron·2021-06-15
C9orf72 repeat expansions cause inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)/frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and result in both loss of C9orf72 protein expression and production of potentially toxic RNA and dipeptide repeat proteins. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), being the number one in terms of dementia burden, is an insidious age-related neurodegenerative disease and is presently considered a global public health threat. 1 key finding →
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with multiple comorbidities, including diabetic retinopathy (DR) and cognitive decline, and T2D patients have a significantly higher risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Recent increases in human longevity have been accompanied by a rise in the incidence of dementia, highlighting the need to preserve cognitive function in an aging population. 2 key findings →
The aging population is a significant social, medical and economic problem due to increasing prevalence of chronic diseases in elderly population. 4 key findings →
Research suggests that social, physical, and cognitively challenging activities during lifetime, could mitigate the negative effects of aging on cognitive function. 1 key finding →
However, individuals participating in training regimens differ greatly with respect to their outcomes, demonstrating the importance of considering individual differences, in particular age and baseline performance in a cognitive domain, when evaluating the effectiveness of cognitive training. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Cell·2021-01-21
The most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a GGGGCC repeat expansion in the C9orf72 gene. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Biophysical journal·2021-01-28
Formation of biomolecular condensates through liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) has emerged as a pervasive principle in cell biology, allowing compartmentalization and spatiotemporal regulation of dynamic cellular processes. 1 key finding →
The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Position Paper focus is on applying the 4 ethical principles for clinician's decision-making in the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration (AANH) for adult and pediatric patients. 5 key findings →
During the past decade, accumulating evidence from the research highlights the suggested effects of bacterial communities of the human gut microbiota and their metabolites on health and disease. 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 27,380 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.