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
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,326–1,350 of 10,183 studies scoring 50–69 out of 100 (page 54 of 408)· 31,380 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; 16,851 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.
Nineteen cross-sectional studies that investigated 19.734 community-dwelling and institutionalized older adults free of disability and dementia were included. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2018-11-01
Stroke, dementia, and hypertension are associated with late-onset epilepsy; however, the role of other vascular and lifestyle factors remains unclear. 5 key findings →
The Hamburg City Health Study (HCHS) is a large, prospective, long-term, population-based cohort study and a unique research platform and network to obtain substantial knowledge about several important risk and prognostic factors in major chronic diseases. 1 key finding →
Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·1998-11-01
Serum tHcy levels were significantly higher and serum folate and vitamin B12 levels were lower in patients with DAT and patients with histologically confirmed AD than in controls. 4 key findings →
The MMSE is the most widely used cognitive test but its accuracy and clinical utility in diagnosing cognitive disorders is not fully known. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2021-09-01
Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau181 were correlated (r=0·90, p diff =0·31) and in pathology-confirmed Alzheimer's disease (n=15, mean age 73 years [SD 12]) versus pathologically confirmed FTLD (n=68, mean age 67 years [SD 8]; AUC=0·96 [0·92-1·00] for p-tau217, AUC=0·91 [0·82-1·00] for p-tau181; p diff =0·22). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2015-09-07
MoCA and MMSE were more similar for dementia cases, but MoCA distributes MCI cases across a broader score range with less ceiling effect. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-11-01
These findings show that frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a highly heritable disorder but heritability varies between the different syndromes. 2 key findings →
In the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), we examined the temporal unfolding of declining performance on tests of episodic memory (Free Recall on the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test), executive function (Category Fluency, Letter Fluency, and Trails), and Verbal Intelligence (Nelson, 1982; American Version of the Nelson Adult Reading Test [AMNART]) before the diagnosis of dementia in 92 subjects with incident Alzheimer's disease (AD) followed for up to 15 years before diagnosis. 2 key findings →
A number of new recommendations and good practice points are made, namely in CSF, neuropsychology, neuroimaging and reviewing non-evidence based therapies. 2 key findings →
There are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2021-01-05
The category of neocortical LP according to the LPC system was associated with a 5.9 OR (p < 0.0001) of dementia in the 134 NBTR cases and a 3.14 OR (p = 0.0001) in the 202 UPBB cases. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-01-12
GOF indices were highest in normal controls, intermediate in MCI, and lowest in AD (p Conclusions fMRI connectivity indices distinguish patients with MCI who undergo cognitive decline and conversion to AD from those who remain stable over a 2- to 3-year follow-up period. 3 key findings →
Vascular cognitive impairment is an umbrella term for cognitive dysfunction associated with and presumed to be caused by vascular brain damage. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Neurology·2019-02-22
In this in vivo study, we have demonstrated that microglial activation quantified using [ 11 C]PBR28 PET was associated with higher gray matter volume and higher hippocampal volume in patients with MCI. 4 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
Randomized / 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
Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%),
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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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.