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 126–150 of 1,097 studies published 2023(page 6 of 44)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2023-01-03
This cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries suggests that use of antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors was associated with lower risk of ADRD compared with antihypertensive medications that inhibit these receptors. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2023-12-01
The full analysis set included 159 patients (66 [41.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 75.6 [5.2] years) who received placebo or cilostazol at least once. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-10-01
An increased tau positron emission tomography (PET) signal in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) has been observed in older individuals in the absence of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology. 4 key findings →
We demonstrated that peripherin is distributed in sciatic nerve, and to a lesser extent spinal cord tissue lysates, but not in brain or extra-neural tissues. 3 key findings →
Plasma p-tau217 may capture earlier Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related cognitive and brain atrophy hallmarks in females compared to males, possibly reflective of increased susceptibility to AD pathophysiology. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·EClinicalMedicine·2023-07-21
Stratification by self-reported recovery revealed that deficits were only detectable in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals who did not feel recovered from COVID-19, whereas individuals who reported full recovery showed no deficits. 2 key findings →
In this cohort study, higher residential PM2.5 levels, especially from agriculture and wildfires, were associated with higher rates of incident dementia, providing further evidence supporting PM2.5 reduction as a population-based approach to promote healthy cognitive aging. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-05-24
In a community-based cohort of 70-year olds, P-NfL was associated with both prevalent and incident CKD, while CSF and/or imaging measures did not differ by CKD status. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2023-12-01
In this randomized clinical trial, BIIB080 reduced tau biomarkers, including CSF t-tau, CSF p-tau181, and tau PET, which is associated with cognitive decline, in participants with mild AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Nature aging·2023-05-18
Blood-based biomarkers hold great promise to revolutionize the diagnostic and prognostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Although loneliness and social isolation have been linked to an increased risk of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease and dementia, their association with the risk of severe infection is uncertain. 4 key findings →
P-tau181 (odds ratio [OR] 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-3.00, p < 0.001), p-tau217 (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10-2.61, p = 0.016), and t-tau (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08-1.92, p = 0.012) were associated with appetite change. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2023-04-14
Dilation of perivascular spaces (PVS) in the brain may indicate poor fluid drainage due to the accumulation of perivascular cell debris, waste, and proteins, including amyloid-beta (Aβ). 2 key findings →
The AD PRS model that was most predictive of AD diagnosis (even without APOE) was the liver AD PRS: n = 1,115; odds ratio = 2.15 (1.67-2.78), p = 3.62×10-9. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·BMJ mental health·2023-07
In the first year of follow-up, increased exposure to all air pollutants was associated with an increase in the use of CMHTs in a dose-response manner. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2023-12-01
From the 868 Framingham Heart Study participants who returned for a second PSG, this cohort included 346 participants with a mean age of 69 years (range, 60-87 years); 179 (52%) were female. 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
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.