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 1,776–1,800 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 72 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 age of the population is shifting toward the elderly range, which may lead to an increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
As aging is associated with cognitive decline, particularly in the executive functions, it is essential to effectively improve cognition in older adults. 4 key findings →
MBSR is well-accepted potentially promising intervention with positive effect on cognition, depressive symptoms and immunological profile. 5 key findings →
Following the rapid increase of the aging population, health promotion and prevention of physical disability and dementia in older persons are essential for healthy aging. 5 key findings →
Cognitive training in MCI may be enhanced by atDCS, but further delineation of the impact of current brain state, as well as temporal characteristics of multi-session atDCS-training application, may be needed to induce longer-lasting effects. 2 key findings →
In this cohort of French older adults, higher adherence to the French MIND diet was associated with a lower dementia risk and with preserved white matter microstructure. 5 key findings →
Modifiable lifestyle risk factors have been identified as playing a major role in the development of dementia; hence, interventions addressing these risk factors represent a significant opportunity to reduce the number of people developing dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2020-09-01
Our search identified a total of 2,824 citations, following screening for duplicates and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, five studies were included for analysis. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Nutrition journal·2015-05-24
It is hypothesised that exercise and Mediterranean diet interventions, both individually and in combination, will result in improvements in cognitive performance compared with controls. 2 key findings →
The present systematic review critically examines the available scientific literature on risk factors for malnutrition in the older population (aged ≥65 y). 1 key finding →
SEE MCKAY AND FURL DOI101093/AWW323 FOR A SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON THIS ARTICLE: Focal brain injury can sometimes lead to bizarre symptoms, such as the delusion that a family member has been replaced by an imposter (Capgras syndrome). 3 key findings →
This pilot study aimed to compare the effect of companion robots (PARO) to participation in an interactive reading group on emotions in people living with moderate to severe dementia in a residential care setting. 2 key findings →
A decision aid about feeding options in advanced dementia reduced decisional conflict for surrogates and increased their knowledge and communication about feeding options with providers. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-05-01
The use of APs by patients with dementia in the general population is associated with increased mortality, but whether this risk extends to patients with PD remains unknown. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2020-07-01
The findings of this cohort study suggest that among older Medicare patients undergoing surgical treatment, a diagnosis of a PND was associated with an increase in health care costs for up to 1 year following the surgical procedure. 5 key findings →
Our findings suggest that older patients with reduced preoperative cognitive functions or who develop postoperative delirium are at risk of developing dementia within 5 years after cardiac surgery. 4 key findings →
ChEIs may increase the risk of syncope, with no effects on falls, fracture, or accidental injury in cognitively impaired older adults. 2 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 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.