alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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 17,976–18,000 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 720 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)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

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.

Qualitative study exploring knowledge and attitudes towards dementia risk prediction, barriers to dementia services and service improvement recommendations with diverse populations in England

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMJ Open 2025-05-01

Participants possessed some knowledge about dementia but highlighted a need for better access to information about dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Student satisfaction of a dementia education intervention: a cross-sectional study of the time for dementia programme

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. BMC Medical Education 2025-06-04

78% of students agreed or strongly agreed that Time for Dementia had increased their knowledge of psychosocial issues, and 69% enjoyed the programme. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Predicting dementia in people with Parkinson’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. npj Parkinson s Disease 2025-05-13

Parkinson's disease (PD) exhibits a variety of symptoms, with approximately 25% of patients experiencing mild cognitive impairment and 45% developing dementia within ten years of diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Estimating the impact of risk factor reduction on dementia prevalence in New Zealand

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-07-01

The PIF for the total NZ population following a 15% risk factor reduction was 14.6% (95% confidence interval: 7.7-21.1) Modeled projections demonstrated prevalence reduction over time, from 1.0% at 10 years to 4.2% at 30 years. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The current status, trends, and challenges of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in Asia (1990–2036)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2025-06-10

In 2021, Asia experienced a 250.44% increase in prevalent cases, a 297.34% rise in mortality, and a 249.54% surge in DALYs for AD and other dementias compared to 1990. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neurodegenerative disorders: A Holistic study of the explainable artificial intelligence applications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 2025-04-18

Neuro Degenerative Disorders (NDDs) involve progressive nerve cell loss, impacting functions like sensation, movement, memory, and cognition, posing life-threatening risks. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Developing an explainable machine learning and fog computing-based visual rating scale for the prediction of dementia progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-07-16

Recently, dementia research has primarily concentrated on using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to develop learning models in processing and analyzing brain data. 2 key findings →

Participants: 450 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Exploring Factors Related to Social Isolation Among Older Adults in the Predementia Stage Using Ecological Momentary Assessments and Actigraphy: Machine Learning Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2025-06-23

Of the 99 participants, 43 were classified into the low social interaction frequency group, and 37 were classified into the high loneliness level group. 5 key findings →

Participants: 99 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Modifiable risk factors for early- and late-onset dementia using the Korean national health insurance service database

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-01-14

Higher socioeconomic status and increased frequency of physical activity were associated with a lower risk of both EOD and LOD. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Insights for dementia risk reduction among lower SES adults in OECD countries: scoping review of interventions targeting multiple common health risk factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. International Journal for Equity in Health 2025-02-24

The number of people living with dementia is expected to rise to 153 million cases globally by 2050. 4 key findings →

Participants: 17,500 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Sleep Health in Adults with Intellectual Disability: Recent Advances and Persistent Evidence Gaps

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Current Treatment Options in Neurology 2026-09-25

Recent Findings Recent observational data in adults with Down syndrome indicate that obstructive sleep apnoea is associated with adverse cardiometabolic, mortality and Alzheimer disease outcomes. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The role of autophagy in the pathogenesis and treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Autophagy Reports 2025-03-20

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) represent two extremes of a neurodegenerative disease spectrum characterised by overlapping genetic, clinical, and neuropathological features. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A role for astrocytic miR-129-5p in frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Translational Psychiatry 2025-04-11

Frontotemporal dementia is a debilitating neurodegenerative disorder characterized by frontal and temporal lobe degeneration, resulting in behavioral changes, language difficulties, and cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Tracer kinetic model detecting heterogeneous blood–brain barrier permeability to water and contrast agent in Alzheimer's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

AD patients exhibited a significant reduction in the water exchange rates across the BBB, whereas DLB patients showed a significant increase in BBB permeability to contrast agent. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

GASDERMIN D-mediated pyroptosis as a therapeutic target in TAU-dependent frontotemporal dementia mouse model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Journal of Biomedical Science 2026-01-05

AD patients exhibited increased expression of pyroptosis-related genes, supporting the involvement of pyroptosis in neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed