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 3,821 studies published 2025(page 8 of 153)· 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.·Neurology·2025-10-28
Biomarkers were measured in 431 Black and 583 White participants (mean age of 77 and 80 years and 17% and 21% of men, respectively), generating a balanced sample of 366:366. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·JAMA network open·2025-02-03
For the intention-to-treat analysis, 60 patients between ages 51 and 82 years (mean [SD], 70.65 [8.16] years; 30 females; 30 males) were included. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Nature Aging·2025-11-24
Delirium is an acute change in cognition, common in hospitalized older adults, and associated with high healthcare and human cost; however, delirium's genetic and proteomic background remains poorly understood. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-01-15
= 0.04). Replacing 1 serving per day of nuts and legumes for processed red meat was associated with a 19% lower risk of dementia (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.86), 1.37 fewer years of cognitive aging (95% CI -2.49 to -0.25), and a 21% lower risk of SCD (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.92). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·BMC Medicine·2025-02-24
We included 18740 patients (10 205 women [54.5%]; mean [SD] age, 78.2[7.4] years), of which 4271 (22.8%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Nature Communications·2025-03-25
Despite remarkable progress in the biomarker field in recent years, local validation of plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia is still lacking in Latin America. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·BMC Medicine·2025-12-01
Higher adherence to the MedDiet was associated with greater gut microbial diversity (p < 0.05) and distinct microbial composition (PERMANOVA, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
Plasma p-tau biomarkers had a greater diagnostic performance and larger effect sizes compared to t-tau and Aβ42/40 assays in detecting Aβ pathology. 5 key findings →
We found that plasma p-tau217 was more associated with cognitive performance than p-tau181 and p-tau231 and that this relationship was particularly strong for memory scores (TRIAD: βp-tau217 = -0.53, βp-tau181 = -0.35 and βp-tau231 = -0.24; BioFINDER-2: βp-tau217 = -0.52, βp-tau181 = -0.24 and βp-tau231 = -0.29). 4 key findings →
In the multivariable linear regression models, a doubling of serum molybdenum level was associated with 9.4% higher Aβ42/40 ratio (95% CI: 0.8, 18.6%; p = 0.03), and a doubling of serum cobalt level with 17.5% higher p-tau181 level (95% CI: 3.1, 33.8%; p = 0.02). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Microorganisms·2025-09-10
Emerging evidence suggests a potential role of gut dysbiosis in neurodegenerative disorders and, in particular, Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Among older adults with diabetes, no clear evidence was found that the incidence of dementia differed overall between patients using GLP-1RAs versus DPP4is. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Brain·2025-01-07
Previous studies have shown that limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC) increases with age, but there have been only a few studies, which have investigated this entity in a population-based setting. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2025-04-18
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is proposed as an indicator of transitional disease stage 2 in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2025-02-17
Among the plasma biomarkers, phosphorylated tau (p-tau) 217 exhibited the highest concordance rate with Aβ (2326 of 2571 [90.5%]) and tau (100 of 120 [83.3%]) PET. 4 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.