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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,051–2,075 of 2,355 studies scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 (page 83 of 95)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
SAA+ individuals had faster cognitive decline than SAA-, notably in mild cognitive impairment, and presented with earlier symptom onset. 5 key findings →
The caregiver burden is frequently used to refer to the physical and psychological problems that may arise from caring for a dependent relative. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2018-03-19
Adult children receiving the NYUCI-AC completed a mean of 5.19 individual and family counseling sessions; it took on average a little over 11 months to do so. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2022-12-27
Not only dementia diagnosis but also time spent with the diagnosis was crucial for the use of LTC in the month preceding death, in particular residential care. 5 key findings →
Prioritizing measures that distinguish the assessment of care from the assessment of dying, and secondarily that exhibit an acceptable factor structure, this study recommends two measures of care-the Family Perceptions of Physician-Family Caregiver Communication and the End of Life in Dementia (EOLD)-Satisfaction With Care-and two measures of outcomes-the EOLD-Symptom Management and the EOLD-Comfort Assessment in Dying. 5 key findings →
Four key themes were identified in this review: goals of care and end-of-life conversations, symptom management, emergency room visits, and prescribing behavior. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Frontiers in dementia·2024-11-18
AADAPt participants had risk factors for developing dementia in future, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, but also reported protective factors such as high social engagement. 2 key findings →
Despite the growth in Medicare managed care enrollment, only 9 papers report the costs of care for individuals with ADRD within these plans, and only 1 study reports data less than 10 years old. 5 key findings →
APPLE-Tree is an accessible intervention associated with small improvements in cognition, although these results were not statistically significant. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2025-11-01
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, estimates indicate that FTD is comparable in frequency to dementia with Lewy bodies and occurs at higher rates than progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2023-12-01
From the 868 Framingham Heart Study participants who returned for a second PSG, this cohort included 346 participants with a mean age of 69 years (range, 60-87 years); 179 (52%) were female. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA·2026-09-15
In a pooled sample of multiple selected cohorts of cognitively unimpaired older adults, higher plasma p-tau217 levels were consistently associated with increased risk of clinical progression and accelerated cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Frailty, comorbidities, and other age-related diseases were associated with a higher risk of dementia but did not account for the elevated dementia risk observed after severe infections. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease and coronary artery disease are common late-life chronic conditions and share multiple risk factors, including the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-01-01
Cerebrospinal fluid NFL concentration (median [interquartile range]) was higher in the AD dementia group (1479 [1134-1842] pg/mL), stable MCI group (no progression to AD during follow-up; 1182 [923-1687] pg/mL), and progressive MCI group (MCI with progression to AD dementia during follow-up; 1336 [1061-1693] pg/mL) compared with control participants (1047 [809-1265] pg/mL) (P Conclusions and relevance Cerebrospinal fluid NFL concentration is increased by the early clinical stage of AD and is associated with cognitive deterioration and structural brain changes over time. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-12-14
Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 is a robust measure for detecting amyloid plaques and can be utilized to aid in the diagnosis of AD, identify those at risk for future dementia due to AD, and improve the diversity of populations enrolled in AD research and clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Both high baseline GFAP (hazard ratio 3·6, 95% CI 2·2-5·7; p 42/40 , both GFAP (2·6, 1·4-5·0; p=0·0026) and amyloid β 42/40 (2·1, 1·2-3·6; p=0·0091) were independently associated with incident dementia whereas NfL was not (1·4, 0·8-2·5; p=0·28). 2 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.