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 18,676–18,700 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 748 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 fornix is a white matter bundle located in the mesial aspect of the cerebral hemispheres, which connects various nodes of a limbic circuitry and is believed to play a key role in cognition and episodic memory recall. 3 key findings →
Future experiments and validation studies Future research should determine the extent to which prevention of surgery-induced microgliosis and/or neurovascular unit dysfunction can prevent or ameliorate postoperative memory and attention deficits in animal models. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Life science alliance·2018-05-16
Frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients with C9orf72 mutation show cytoplasmic poly-GR and poly-PR aggregates. 2 key findings →
The fundamental role that alpha-synuclein (aSyn) plays in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative synucleinopathies, including Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and multiple system atrophy, is a well-accepted fact. 2 key findings →
The present results support that progression to AD dementia is driven by the synergistic rather than a mere additive effect between Aβ and p-tau proteins. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·PLoS medicine·2017-03-14
In an Essay, Andrew Jackson and colleagues discuss challenges in the diagnosis and management of older people with dementia and delirium in acute hospitals. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2006-06-28
The intervention area consisted of two hospitals and the 21 nursing homes (NHs) around them compared with another, geographically separate, hospital and the 13 homes around it. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·JAMA·1995-04-01
Evidence that dying occurs as a natural, final event in the wholeness of human life is culturally, artistically, and scientifically persuasive. 2 key findings →
Based on the perceptions of bereaved family members, important opportunities exist to improve decision-making in feeding tube insertion. 3 key findings →
Dementia syndrome is common and expected to increase significantly among older people and characterized by the loss of cognitive, psychological and physical functions. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·JAMA·2010-02-01
Among nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment admitted to acute care hospitals, for-profit ownership, larger hospital size, and greater ICU use was associated with increased rates of feeding tube insertion, even after adjusting for patient-level characteristics. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Practical neurology·2017-02-02
Rapidly progressive dementia mimicking Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is a relatively rare presentation but a rewarding one to become familiar with, as the potential diagnoses range from the universally fatal to the completely reversible. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Palliative care·2019-02-27
The process of advance care planning in dementia is far from straightforward; as dementia progresses, the ability to consider future thoughts and actions becomes compromised, thus affecting decision-making abilities. 3 key findings →
This paper will describe initiatives within the RHS frameworks of the National Health Group (NHG) and the Alexandra Health System (AHS) to forge a frailty-ready healthcare system across the spectrum, which includes the well healthy ("living well"), the well unhealthy ("living with illness"), the unwell unhealthy ("living with frailty"), and the end-of-life (EoL) ("dying well"). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2018-08-16
ACP is facilitated by an open relationship based on trust between the GP, the person with dementia and his/her family caregiver, in which both medical and non-medical issues are addressed. 1 key finding →
The most common underlying causes of death among the 49,172 deceased nursing home residents were circulatory diseases (42.2%) and dementia (22.7%). 3 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.