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 1,212 studies published 2019(page 8 of 49)· 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 66 out of 100.·Brain injury·2019-04-02
Recent literature shows that GLP-1 and its agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors and combined GLP-1/GIP molecules are effective in partially or fully reversing the effects of neurotoxic compounds, neurovascular complications of diabetes, neuropathological changes related with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease or vascular occlusion. 4 key findings →
Cerebrovascular changes, including reduced cerebral blood flow (CBF), occur early in the development of Alzheimer disease and may accelerate disease progression. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Aging·2019-02-01
Understanding how metabolites are longitudinally influenced by age and sex could facilitate the identification of metabolomic profiles and trajectories that indicate disease risk. 4 key findings →
The Hamburg City Health Study (HCHS) is a large, prospective, long-term, population-based cohort study and a unique research platform and network to obtain substantial knowledge about several important risk and prognostic factors in major chronic diseases. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Neurology·2019-02-22
In this in vivo study, we have demonstrated that microglial activation quantified using [ 11 C]PBR28 PET was associated with higher gray matter volume and higher hippocampal volume in patients with MCI. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Neurology·2019-12-30
These results suggest that WMH primarily affect the risk of progression when CSF measures of neurodegeneration or neuronal injury (as reflected by t-tau) are low. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2019-02-12
Incidence of dementia is nearly 50 times higher in the year after a major stroke compared with that in the general population, but excess risk is substantially lower after transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Neurology·2019-02-06
The results suggest that the contribution of education to cognitive reserve is limited to its association with level of cognitive function before old age. 4 key findings →
In community-dwelling older persons, the combination of a long-term lifestyle MI and omega-3 supplementation did not reduce frailty level or incidence. 3 key findings →
For the last 17 years, an increase of mortality for patients with hip fracture and a higher mortality rate in men than in women were observed. 5 key findings →
Parkinson's disease has a long prodromal stage with various subclinical motor and non-motor manifestations; however, their evolution in the years before Parkinson's disease is diagnosed is unclear. 5 key findings →
Our main findings were: (i) FDG-PET uptake in the bilateral anterior cingulate cortex and anterior temporal pole was associated with baseline global cognition in cognitively stable 80+ (the resilience signature); (ii) established Alzheimer's disease imaging biomarkers did not predict baseline global cognition in this subset of participants; (iii) in the full MCSA 80+ and ADNI cohorts, amyloid burden and FDG-PET in the resilience signature were the stronger predictors of baseline global cognition; (iv) sex and systemic vascular health predicted FDG-PET in the resilience signature, suggesting vascular health maintenance as a potential pathway to preserve the metabolism of these areas; and (v) the resilience signature provided significant information about global longitudinal cognitive change even when considering amyloid status in both the MCSA and ADNI cohorts. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·BMC public health·2019-06-27
Fifty-one studies from 16 States of India were included as 56 datasets, which estimated the prevalence of depression among Indian elderly population as 34.4% (95% CI: 29.3-39.7). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·mBio·2019-05-07
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia, has long been associated with bacterial infections and inflammation-causing immunosenescence. 5 key findings →
The prevalence of A+T+N+F+ profile was 66.24% in clinically diagnosed AD dementia patients; similarly, the majority of individuals with reduced FDG-PET were AD dementia subjects. 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 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.