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 13,301–13,325 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 533 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.·Annals of neurology·1988-12-01
To assess the occurrence and related features of motor vehicle crashes in patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) we studied 30 patients who had been followed longitudinally and 20 healthy age-matched control subjects. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Sleep·1991-12-01
Circadian rhythms in elderly patients with severe dementia and behavioral disorders such as wandering, agitation and/or delirium were examined. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·1999-10-01
There is a consistent pattern of vulnerability to LB formation across subcortical, paralimbic, and neocortical structures that is similar for DLB cases with or without concomitant AD. 4 key findings →
The difficulty in differentiating progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP, also called Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome) from other related disorders was the incentive for a study to determine the clinical features that best distinguish PSP. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Chest·1996-11-01
Diffuse aspiration bronchiolitis (DAB) is a new term that we proposed to define a clinical entity that is characterized by a chronic inflammation of bronchioles caused by recurrent aspiration of foreign particles. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·JAMA·2001-02-01
The case story of a 47-year-old man with advanced rectal carcinoma illustrates the professional services and care system strategies available to help clinicians serve patients coming to the end of life. 1 key finding →
Most people in Germany die in institutions; the most common place of death is still the hospital, where more than half of all deaths take place. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·PloS one·2013-04-10
This qualitative evaluation of ACP in early dementia has encouragingly positive results which support the wider application of the intervention in memory services and community mental health teams. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·JAMA·2003-04-01
Cessation of life-support treatment is an appropriate option for situations in which the burdens of therapy substantially outweigh the benefits. 4 key findings →
Our comparative study of psychometric properties of instruments allows for informed selection of QOC and QOD measures for LTC residents with dementia. 1 key finding →
We aimed to explore diagnoses associated with antipsychotic use, treatment patterns and characteristics of users without diagnoses relevant to antipsychotic treatment. 3 key findings →
After controlling for comorbidities, treated AD patients have better survival, lower institutionalization, and sometimes fewer resource utilizations, suggesting that treatment and improved care management could be beneficial for newly-diagnosed AD patients from economic and clinical perspectives. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC palliative care·2016-03-10
Contextual factors regarding the care home environment may be obdurate and tend to negatively impact on the quality of end of life dementia care. 1 key finding →
There is considerable ambiguity about initiating ACP in dementia at diagnosis among physicians practicing in two different European health care systems and caring for different patient populations. 2 key findings →
Families' reports of unpleasant experiences with end-of-life care may inform practice to improve perceived quality of dying of their loved ones. 4 key findings →
A large proportion of patients with ECI decline ACP discussions and the reasons are influenced by personal values, coping behaviours and sociocultural norms. 3 key findings →
The percentage of psychological distress was similar between caregivers of cancer patients (77.6%) and caregivers of dementia patients (72.4%). 3 key findings →
This study reports findings from a series of focus groups with persons with dementia and family caregivers intended to explore: (1) perceptions of and experiences with advance care planning (ACP); (2) concerns related to future care including, but not limited to, end-of-life care; and (3) practices that may support positive engagement with ACP. 2 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 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.