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 21,076–21,100 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 844 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.
Some indicators imply a less than optimal quality of care (restraints, pressure sores, psychoactive drugs, and the lack of documentation of shared decision-making) and suggest that far advanced demented patients are not fully perceived as "terminal." 2 key findings →
The authors prospectively explored the consequences of hip fracture with regard to discharge placement, functional status, and mortality using the Survey on Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-01-01
Substantial progress has been made in the understanding of the neurobiology of dementias, but comprehensive causal models are not available. 5 key findings →
Researchers on genetic and environmental influences on risk for Alzheimer's disease must be prepared for the growing ethnic and racial diversity of our participants. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Nutrition journal·2016-06-07
Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) enforce an overwhelming social and economic burden on society. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is the seventh leading cause of all deaths in the United States and the fifth leading cause of death in Americans older than the age of 65 years. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-04-24
As the U.S. population ages, the burden of neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease, will increase substantially. 5 key findings →
Ophthalmologic abnormalities have been described in patients with dementia, but the extent to which poor vision and treatment for visual disorders affect cognitive decline is not well defined. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·1983-01-01
The nucleus basalis of Meynert, the major source of cholinergic innervation of the cerebral cortex, was morphometrically investigated in 58 cases of neuropsychiatric disorders and compared to 14 controls. 2 key findings →
Substituted judgment has been proposed as a method of promoting the autonomy of the mentally incapacitated patient, but little is known about the accuracy of surrogate decision makers in reflecting the true wishes of patients. 2 key findings →
Despite moderate motor and cognitive decline, probably due to disease progression, the marked improvement in motor function observed postoperatively was sustained 5 years after neurosurgery. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a multifactorial neurodegenerative disorder that involves dysregulation of many cellular and molecular processes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2013-05-19
Accurately identifying the patients that have mild cognitive impairment (MCI) who will go on to develop Alzheimer's disease (AD) will become essential as new treatments will require identification of AD patients at earlier stages in the disease process. 1 key finding →
Studies of patients with semantic impairments following brain damage offer key insights into the cognitive and neural organization of semantic memory. 1 key finding →
In recent years, there has been a great interest in computer-aided diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and its prodromal stage, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
A new chaos-wavelet approach is presented for electroencephalogram (EEG)-based diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) employing a recently developed concept in graph theory, visibility graph (VG). 5 key findings →
Traditionally, lymphocytic interferon γ (IFN-γ) was considered to be a simple 'booster' of proinflammatory responses by microglia (brain-resident macrophages) during bacterial or viral infection. 2 key findings →
Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) is a non-invasive imaging technique that has been increasingly used to image the retinal vasculature at capillary level resolution. 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 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.