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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,576–1,600 of 1,603 studies scoring ≥ 70 out of 100 (page 64 of 65)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
Sleep duration had an inverted U-shape relationship with cognitive scores (P <.001); and sleep quality had a positive linear relationship with cognitive scores (P <.001). 5 key findings →
Of 1,164 participants (mean age 73.5 years, 64% women), 580 (49.8%) had mild hearing impairment and 196 (16.8%) had moderate/severe hearing impairment. 5 key findings →
The combinations of hearing and proprioceptive impairment and hearing, vision, and proprioceptive impairment, were positively correlated with cDVR (β = 0.087 and p = 0.036, β = 0.110 and p = 0.018, respectively). 3 key findings →
The present study showed that higher educational levels were related to better general cognitive function, executive function, memory, and information processing speed in PD patients, whereas no significant association was showed between educational levels and visuospatial function, language in PD patients. 4 key findings →
Evidence on the association between air pollution and dementia is accumulating but still inconclusive, and the potential effect modification by genetics is unclear. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Public health·2022-10-03
In total, 20 articles were selected for review; 18 included results on the long-term effects of PM2.5 on dementia, 13 on AD, and eight on VaD. 5 key findings →
A high-protein and alcohol dietary pattern was negatively associated with cortical thickness in the whole brain (Beta: -0.011; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.018 to -0.003), and with an Alzheimer's disease cortical thickness signature score (Beta: -0.013; 95% CI: -0.024 to -0.001). 5 key findings →
Emerging evidence of brain injury on risk of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) have resulted in interest in therapeutic potential of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3FA). 5 key findings →
The evolution of the understanding of the intestinal microbiota and its influence on our organism leverages it as a potential protagonist in therapies aimed at diseases that affect not only the intestine but also neural pathways and the central nervous system itself. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Aging & mental health·2015-11-20
General burden is shown to be determined by severity of patient's neuropsychiatric symptoms, caregiver's sense of competence, health-related quality of life. 3 key findings →
Further studies are needed to identify modifiable risk factors for FI detection and its symptom management in this patient population. 5 key findings →
Among subjects identified as having dementia by the prediction model, 43.5% to 50.2%, depending on the survey year, reported that they were informed of the dementia status by their physician. 5 key findings →
Residents enrolled in managed care (n = 133) were more likely to have do-not-hospitalize orders compared with those in traditional Medicare fee for service (n = 158) (63.7% vs 50.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4), were less likely to be transferred to the hospital for acute illness (3.8% vs 15.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.5), had more primary care visits per 90 days (mean [SD], 4.8 [2.6] vs 4.2 [5.0]; adjusted rate ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6), and had more nurse practitioner visits (3.0 [2.1] vs 0.8 [2.6]; adjusted rate ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.2-4.1). 3 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.