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 151–175 of 1,102 studies published 2018(page 7 of 45)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
ABSTRACTObjective:To compare the accuracy of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in tracking mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 2 key findings →
By pooling two long-running community studies from the same region of Pennsylvania, researchers compared dementia rates across people born in different decades, from the 1900s to the 1940s. Each successively younger birth cohort had a substantially lower risk of developing dementia at a given age, with the youngest group's risk about a quarter of the oldest group's. This adds US evidence, independent of Framingham, that generational health improvements are lowering dementia risk. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·BMJ·2018-08-01
This 23-year study found a U-shaped relationship between alcohol and dementia risk: people who abstained from alcohol in midlife, as well as those who drank heavily (more than 14 units, about 14 standard drinks, per week), both had a higher risk of developing dementia than people who drank moderately. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2018-03-01
Inclusion criteria included clinical diagnosis of PPA; availability of complete speech, language, and cognitive testing; magnetic resonance imaging performed within 6 months of the cognitive evaluation; and PET carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound-B or florbetapir F 18 brain scan results. 5 key findings →
Metformin should continue to be used as a first line therapy for diabetes in patients at risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer's disease. 4 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 →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·PloS one·2018-02-28
We found no evidence to support the theory that natural variation in cumulative exposure to endogenous oestrogens across the reproductive period influences dementia incidence in late life. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-06-01
Compared with controls, patients with idiopathic REM sleep behaviour disorder had decreased colonic 11 C-donepezil uptake (-0·322, 95% CI -0·112 to -0·531; p=0·0020), 123 I-MIBG heart:mediastinum ratio (-0·508, -0·353 to -0·664; p 18 F-DOPA uptake (Ki; -0·0023, -0·0009 to -0·0037; p=0·0013). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Ophthalmology·2018-04-30
A total of 16 084 European adults from 8 cohort studies (mean age range, 56.9±12.3-82.1±4.2 years) of the European Eye Epidemiology (E3) consortium. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-08-29
The diagnostic performance of plasma biomarkers was poor (area under the curve [AUC] between 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·62] and 0·74 [0·66-0·82]) except for plasma NfL concentrations, which had an AUC of 0·88 (0·82-0·93) for the differentiation of the asymptomatic group versus the prodromal Alzheimer's disease group and 0·95 (0·92-0·98) for the asymptomatic group versus the Alzheimer's disease dementia group. 4 key findings →
The higher risk of AD among blacks may stem from lower level of cognitive test performance persisting throughout the observation period rather than faster rate of late-life cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2018-08-03
These results support the hypothesis that the appearance of WMH follows age and disease-dependent regional distribution patterns, potentially influenced by differential underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and possibly with a differential link to vascular and neurodegenerative changes. 5 key findings →
We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2018-10-04
Plasma Abeta42/Abeta40 ratio has potential as a prescreener to identify Alzheimer pathological changes in cognitively normal individuals with SCD. 2 key findings →
Home-based CCT Adaptive WM training appears more effective than Non-Adaptive training in older adults from different cultural backgrounds. 4 key findings →
The experiences and preparedness of informal carers is a reflection of their personal response, but the distress experienced highlights the significant need of adequate support availability and of enhancing nursing staffs' dementia expertise to maximize their role in facilitating best interest decision-making. 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.