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 18,151–18,175 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 727 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neuropsychologia·2008-05-02
A well-documented feature of Huntington's disease (HD) is disproportionate impairment in the ability to recognise the emotional expression of disgust. 2 key findings →
Central nervous system (CNS) human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection begins during primary viremia and continues throughout the course of untreated systemic infection. 5 key findings →
The SHBM provides an empirically based conceptual framework for examining cross-cultural differences in dementia care-seeking among diverse groups. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·1993-08-01
Nine Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) sites were surveyed to identify barriers to recruiting black subjects. 4 key findings →
This paper is a qualitative study based on retrospective, unstructured, qualitative interviews with Mrs. Jones and other African-American, Chinese-American, Irish-American and Latino family caregivers in the Boston area. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·1992-06-01
We compared black (n = 33) and white (n = 119) caregivers of dementia patients on indices of adaptation, adjustment, and utilization of supportive services. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2001-10-01
In 1994-1995, a screening and examination survey was conducted to ascertain the prevalence of dementia, Parkinson's disease and stroke in two urban communities and one rural community of central Spain. 3 key findings →
A study to estimate the prevalence of dementia in a rural population was conducted in a community located on the outskirts of Madras city in South India. 2 key findings →
Only a minority of people with dementia receive a formal diagnosis despite a growing body of evidence highlighting the benefits of early diagnosis and intervention. 1 key finding →
This study investigated the prevalence of depressive symptoms among White Hispanic (WH) and White non-Hispanic (WNH) first-degree family caregivers. 1 key finding →
Pharmacotherapy of aggressive or agitated behaviors in the dementia patient has not been studied extensively, despite the prevalence of this problem. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·CNS drugs·2008-01-01
Despite the availability of different classes of drugs for the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders, there are a number of clinically significant unmet needs, such as a high prevalence of treatment resistance, partial response, subsyndromal symptomatology, recurrence and relapse. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·European neurology·1996-01-01
Cerebral atrophy (CA) in stroke patients is associated with poststroke dementia and may reflect underlying neurodegenerative pathology. 3 key findings →
Fourteen measures of empty speech during a picture description task were examined in four subject groups--patients with Alzheimer's dementia, Wernicke's aphasias, anomic aphasias, and normal controls--to discover if these groups could be distinguished on the basis of their discourse. 1 key finding →
Parkinson's disease patients may suffer from cognitive impairment and behavioural problems such as apathy, personality changes, speech disturbances and visual hallucinations (Parkinson's disease dementia). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Stroke·1992-11-01
Hypertension-caused arteriosclerotic changes of the long penetrating medullary arteries may cause misery perfusion and later ischemic damage in the periventricular white matter. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neuropsychologia·2010-10-01
Patients with degenerative dementia often show language disorders, but little is known about their verbal (VC) and non-verbal communication (NVC). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Geriatrics·1986-04-01
The development of FAST is of great importance to clinicians in identifying possibly remediable complications of Alzheimer's disease and distinguishing them from the characteristic progression of the illness. 2 key findings →
The Arabic GDS is a useful measure to assess depression among community-dwelling older adults and primary care patients who do not have dementia. 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.