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 16,376–16,400 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 656 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.
The rising prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease–related dementias has led to renewed public discourse and policy changes in response to the care needs of persons living with dementia and their care partners. 5 key findings →
We previously demonstrated that PST/DSJ improved caregiver burden and depressive symptoms among caregivers of adults with Alzheimer’s Disease and related dementias (ADRD), regardless of the number of sessions or boosters received. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2025-09-09
Four themes were derived from the data analysis as key areas of caregiving needs for Latinos: need to connect socially with others; need for resources to provide care; need to understand dementia and navigating existing resources and future care planning; and need for empathic, culturally congruent healthcare. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Psychogeriatrics·2026-02-13
Family caregivers (n = 705) had a mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of 54.6 ± 11.5 years, 56.9% were male, and 84.0% cared for a parent or in-law with AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·BMC Nursing·2025-02-26
The findings revealed a significant negative correlation between fatigue and hope (r = -.431, p <.01), a significant positive correlation between fatigue and anxiety (r =.584, p <.01), and a significant negative correlation between hope and anxiety (r = -.364, p <.01). 4 key findings →
These findings identify affiliate stigma as an important risk factor for dementia caregivers’ depressive symptoms, operating through both objective and emotional forms of social disconnection. 2 key findings →
Frequently reported factors included self-management support, information access, and enhanced communication, although these were not consistently addressed across all reviews. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·BMC Nursing·2025-10-22
The final models included six predictors: caregivers' social support, caregivers' employment situation, caregivers' average daily care duration, caregivers' monthly family income, caregivers' self-efficacy and PwD's chronic disease. 5 key findings →
Despite progress in involving people living with dementia in health research, disparities remain, particularly in the field of health economics and outcomes research, where excessive reliance on proxy reports from care partners or healthcare professionals persists even when people are capable of self-reporting, leading to inequitable inclusion. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Healthcare·2025-02-20
Using data from South Korea’s 2018 teleconsultation pilot program involving 1232 patients, the analysis revealed that teleconsultation reduced societal costs per consultation by USD 7.92 for chronic diseases, USD 27.30 for dementia care, and USD 9.61 for rehabilitation. 4 key findings →
The global age-standardised DALY rates of ADRDs per 100 000 population slightly increased from 1331.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 881.57, 1781.61) in 1990 to 1347.24 (95% CI = 906.36, 1788.12) in 2021, with an AAPC of 0.04% (95% CI = 0.02, 0.05). 5 key findings →
Incorporating RHR into the CAIDE model significantly improved predictive accuracy across Black African, Asian, White, and Native Hawaiian populations (mean AUC range: 0.80-0.91). 5 key findings →
In 2021, the age-standardized prevalence of AD and other dementia in China was 1,194 per 100,000 (95% CI: 1018-1,383), and the mortality rate was 35 per 100,000 (95% CI: 9-93). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-04-18
This study aims to analyze temporal trends in the prevalence and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) burden of early-onset dementia (EOD) globally from 1990 to 2021 and assess the attributable burdens of modifiable risk factors. 2 key findings →
BackgroundPopulation ageing in Africa will increase the burden of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias within the next few decades. 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.