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 1,751–1,775 of 3,821 studies published 2025(page 71 of 153)· 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.
Women living in areas with higher walkability showed slower rates of decline in immediate (estimate=0.019, SE=0.009) and delayed recall (estimate=0.018, SE=0.008) (Figure 1). 5 key findings →
Among a matched sample of 15,410,030 beneficiaries, accounting for both provider and patient characteristics, the incident dementia diagnosis rate was 0.11 percentage points lower for MA beneficiaries compared to TM beneficiaries attributed to the same PCP. 5 key findings →
The nationwide combined weighted PAF for the eight CMDs was 37% overall, with hypertension (9.6%), ischemic heart disease (6.7%), and chronic heart failure (5.7%) associated with the greatest attributable fractions of dementia cases. 5 key findings →
Participants' age ranged from 45 to 87, 53% were women, and 26% were diagnosed with dementia (39% AD, 18% Lewy Body and 17% Frontotemporal Dementia; Table 1). 5 key findings →
A total of 260,200 older adults were screened for delirium (median [IQR] age in years: 78.0 [74.0-84.0]; female: 143,402 [55.1%]; non-Hispanic Black: 40,737 [15.8%]; Hispanic: 30,760 [11.9%]; median [IQR] Area Deprivation Index: 4.0 [2.0-6.0]; median [IQR] Charlson Comorbidity Index: 10.0 [8.0-13.0]). 5 key findings →
Participants with impaired hearing (n = 179) were older (73.9 vs. 71.4 years, p <0.001), often male (61.5% vs. 36.5%, p <0.001), and had lower cognitive scores than normal-hearing individuals (n = 241). 5 key findings →
Living in more deprived neighborhoods was associated with an accelerated disease course in bvFTD, highlighting an important socioeconomic disparity in disease prognosis. 3 key findings →
Dream recall status was associated with blood p ‐tau217 levels, APOE ε4 carriage, and future cognitive decline among older individuals cognitively healthy at baseline. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Aging·2025-05-08
Although apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 is a well-established risk factor for Alzheimer disease, its role in the development of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) remains uncertain. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Nature Metabolism·2025-10-16
Sortilin (SORT1) is a lipoprotein receptor that shows genome-wide association with hypercholesterolaemia, explained by its ability to control hepatic output of lipoproteins. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer research has been driven by genetic findings: from the 1990s until about 2005, by the identification of amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin (PSEN) mutations, leading to the formulation of the amyloid hypothesis, and then from ~2007 by genome-wide studies which have led to the increasing appreciation of the importance of microglial insufficiency in the disease pathogenesis. 3 key findings →
Analysis of the genotyping data revealed that the TMEM106B locus consists of four major haplotypes: HA/Ha (covering the coding region), and HB/Hb (covering the upstream regulatory region). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·EJNMMI Physics·2025-06-09
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disorder in which tau neurofibrillary tangles are a pathological hallmark closely associated with cognitive dysfunction and neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →
No significant associations were found between retinal thickness and AD risk (RNFL: odds ratio [OR]IVW = 1.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.986-1.017, P = 0.883; GCIPL: ORIVW = 1.008, 95% CI = 0.997-1.019, P = 0.172). 5 key findings →
Annotation. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in older adults, characterized by the accumulation of pathological proteins – beta-amyloid (Aβ) and hyperphosphorylated tau protein – resulting in neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
The aim of this literature review is to examine and contrast four dietary patterns to evaluate their influence on Alzheimer's prevention. 1 key finding →
Amyloid-targeting therapy has recently become widely available in the United States for the treatment of patients with symptomatic mild Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Overall PiB-PET uptake increased during the first two years (before ARIA-E) and decreased during the last two years (including ARIA-E episodes) (0.03±0.05 vs. -0.04±0.04 SUVR/year, p-value=0.01, Figure 2). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Pharmaceutics·2025-08-07
Atherosclerosis is a progressive, multifactorial disease driven by the interplay of lipid dysregulation, chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and maladaptive vascular remodeling. 5 key findings →
Of the 477 participants (70.9% women, mean age = 63 years), 339 (71.1%) completed the survey immediately after the e-learning, and 241 (50.5%) completed the three-month follow-up survey. 5 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.