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 12,526–12,550 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 502 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.
This study evaluated performance of a commercially available standardized software program for calculation of florbetapir PET standard uptake value ratios (SUVr) in comparison with an established research method. 1 key finding →
Positive correlations were found between eFBP/eFMM and 18F-FDG-PET SUVR independently of Aβ status and Aβ radiotracer (R>0.72, p<0.001). eFBP/eFMM single-subject analysis revealed clusters of significant hypoperfusion with good correspondence to hypometabolism topographies, independently of the underlying neurodegenerative patterns. 5 key findings →
In the 98 participants with long follow-up, Centiloid = 26 provided the highest overall predictive value = 87% (NPV = 85%, PPV = 88%). 5 key findings →
Regression analyses were run within cohorts to identify variables associated with retrosplenial or inferior parietal FDG standard uptake value ratios. 5 key findings →
When comparing SCD (N = 40) with NC (N = 45), mdALFFmean decreased at right inferior parietal lobule (IPL) of the frontoparietal network (FPN). 5 key findings →
Compared to healthy control subjects with no cognitive deficits, altered cerebellar FC were observed in early PD participants with both motor and cognitive deficits, but not in PD patients with normal cognition, nor elderly subjects showing signs of a cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
The FC between the retrosplenial (RSC) and parahippocampal cortices (PHC) was the earliest affected FC, while a manifest SC change in the ventral cingulum and fornix was observed in the later ADD stage. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-05-15
Participants with PD had significantly reduced sensorimotor functional connectivity, which correlated with reduced CSF levels of α-synuclein. 5 key findings →
Classification of MCI and HC displayed highest accuracy based on diffusion MRI, which besides demonstrated high correlation with clinical scores. 5 key findings →
Previous work indicates that resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is sensitive to functional brain changes related to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology across the clinical spectrum. 3 key findings →
With the advent of the first disease-modifying, anti-amyloid β-directed passive immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease, questions arise who, when, and how to treat. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder marked by cognitive decline and functional impairment, primarily driven by the accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and tau tangles. 5 key findings →
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recent accelerated approval of two anti-amyloid antibodies for treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), aducanumab and lecanemab, has caused substantial debate. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature communications·2026-06-09
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have shown promise in preclinical models of neurodegeneration, with emerging evidence suggesting these effects may be driven by modulation of neuroinflammation. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Endocrine regulations·2025-12-12
This case suggests that mirtazapine may be beneficial in mitigating GLP-1 RA-induced gastrointestinal side effects, thereby improving adherence and therapeutic efficacy. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurologia·2018-06-10
Potential pharmacogenetic biomarkers for AD have been identified; however, it is still necessary to conduct further research into other populations and to identify new biomarkers. 2 key findings →
This article describes the protocol for the Systematic Multi-domain Alzheimer's Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a single-blind randomized pilot trial to test a personalized, pragmatic, multi-domain Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk reduction intervention in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. 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.