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 12,851–12,875 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 515 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2021-06-04
This work validates the generalizability of MRI-based classification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and controls (CN) to an external data set and to the task of prediction of conversion to AD in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
The method presented in this paper can be used to separate stable MCI patients from those who are at early stages of AD dementia with high accuracy. 2 key findings →
Providing peer-support groups using telehealth may have the potential to develop self-sustaining peer networks for isolated caregivers of people with dementia. 1 key finding →
The complex molecular mechanism and pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) limits the development of effective therapeutics or prevention strategies. 5 key findings →
The poor generalizability of clinical research data due to the enrollment of highly educated, non-Latinx White participants hampers the development of therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a debilitating neurodegenerative disorder with a global impact, yet its pathogenesis remains poorly understood. 3 key findings →
This study aimed to use peripheral plasma d-glutamate levels to differentiate patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) from healthy individuals and to evaluate its prediction ability using machine learning. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Chest·2011-06-01
To record sleep, actigraph devices are worn on the wrist and record movements that can be used to estimate sleep parameters with specialized algorithms in computer software programs. 1 key finding →
In the past, the role of physical activity as a life-style modulating factor has been considered as that of a tool to balance energy intake. 2 key findings →
Interest in characterizing the role of impaired insulin actions in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia is growing exponentially. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Revue neurologique·2019-09-11
The mechanisms of action of the dietary components of the Mediterranean diet are reviewed in prevention of cardiovascular disease, stroke, age-associated cognitive decline and Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia among the elderly and is characterized by progressive loss of memory and cognition. 3 key findings →
Complex visual hallucinations may affect some normal individuals on going to sleep and are also seen in pathological states, often in association with a sleep disturbance. 3 key findings →
In neither group have we found any association with prematurely grey hair, hypertension, diabetes, pernicious anaemia, or thyroid disorder. 1 key finding →
Recent literature has pointed to the existence of inflammasome-mediated inflammatory pathways in central nervous system (CNS) disorders and associated changes in behavior. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2003-07-01
Epidemiological studies found associations between hyperhomocysteinaemia and both histologically confirmed AD and disease progression and revealed that dementia in AD was associated with evidence of brain infarcts on autopsy. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·1982-01-01
Sleep, EEG and mental function variables were studied in 44 subjects diagnosed as having probable senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type (SDAT) and 22 controls matched for age and minimal depression. 3 key findings →
Sleep and waking EEGs from 11 healthy nondemented elderly men and from ten inpatients for whom the diagnosis was probable senile dementia of Alzheimer's type (SDAT), were monitored in the subjects' typical home or ward environments or in the sleep laboratory, according to their customary sleep schedules. 4 key findings →
Genetic variations in promoter sequences that alter gene expression play a prominent role in increasing susceptibility to complex diseases. 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.