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 176–200 of 909 studies published 2016(page 8 of 37)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-07-06
The influence of this genetic risk may begin in early life and make an individual more susceptible to cognitive impairment in late life. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-04-01
After the change point, carriers had a statistically significant cognitive decline with a loss of 0.24 (95% CI, -0.26 to -0.22) points per year for the word list recall test and 2.13 (95% CI, -2.29 to -1.96) points per year for total scores. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA psychiatry·2016-12-01
Loneliness is a perceived state of social and emotional isolation that has been associated with cognitive and functional decline and an increased risk of incident AD dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Maturitas·2016-01-04
Although multi-component social support interventions may improve caregiver well-being, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether a change in social support is the underlying mediating factor. 3 key findings →
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a microglial receptor that recognizes changes in the lipid microenvironment, which may occur during amyloid β (Aβ) accumulation and neuronal degeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The discovery that heterozygous missense mutations in the gene encoding triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) are risk factors for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with only the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 gene allele conferring a higher risk, has led to increased interest in immune biology in the brain. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2016-03-25
Elevated preoperative and postoperative plasma levels of C-reactive protein were associated with delirium, suggesting that a preinflammatory state and heightened inflammatory response to surgery are potential pathophysiologic mechanisms of delirium. 4 key findings →
The goal of this paper was to evaluate the in vivo kinetics of the novel tau-specific PET radioligand 18 F-AV-1451 in cognitively healthy control (HC) and Alzheimer disease (AD) subjects, using reference region analyses. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2016-08-11
When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. 4 key findings →
Among 57 753 decedents, approximately half of the patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty received palliative care consultations (adjusted proportions, 50.4%, 46.7%, and 43.7%, respectively) vs 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia (P Conclusions and relevance Family-reported quality of end-of-life care was significantly better for patients with cancer and those with dementia than for patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty, largely owing to higher rates of palliative care consultation and do-not-resuscitate orders and fewer deaths in the intensive care unit among patients with cancer and those with dementia. 2 key findings →
As the physiological impact of chronic stress is difficult to study in humans, naturalistic stressors are invaluable sources of information in this area. 2 key findings →
The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between data on cerebral amyloidosis, derived using Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography and (i) multi-laboratory INNOTEST enzyme linked immunosorbent assay derived cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of amyloid-β42; (ii) centrally measured cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β42 using a Meso Scale Discovery enzyme linked immunosorbent assay; and (iii) cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β42 centrally measured using an antibody-independent mass spectrometry-based reference method. 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 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.