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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,126–2,150 of 15,839 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 86 of 634)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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 47 out of 100.·Neurology·1993-01-01
We quantified the synaptic population density in the frontal cortex of 25 individuals without dementia 16 to 98 years old, using sections double-immunolabeled for beta/A4 amyloid and for synaptophysin, and found a significant inverse correlation between the presynaptic terminal (PT) counts and age (r = -0.7, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2006-01-01
Progressive aphasia is best seen as a composite of two conditions, on both clinical and pathological levels: progressive nonfluent aphasia and semantic dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2013-08-31
Recent studies have highlighted a group of 4-repeat (4R) tauopathies that are characterised neuropathologically by widespread, globular glial inclusions (GGIs). 2 key findings →
Cerebrospinal fluid synaptotagmin-1 is a promising biomarker to monitor synaptic dysfunction and degeneration in Alzheimer's disease that may be useful for clinical diagnosis, to monitor effect on synaptic integrity by novel drug candidates, and to explore pathophysiology directly in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2021-04-08
Tauopathies consist of over 25 different neurodegenerative diseases that include argyrophilic grain disease (AGD), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal degeneration (CBD), and Pick's disease (PiD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2009-02-01
Based on this cohort, although CJD is the most likely cause of a rapidly progressive neurodegenerative dementia, frontotemporal lobar degeneration with motor neuron degeneration, diffuse Lewy body disease, tauopathies, and Alzheimer disease can also cause a rapidly progressive dementia. 1 key finding →
These results indicate that in Alzheimer's disease, tau pathology is closely associated with reduced synaptic density and synaptic dysfunction. 4 key findings →
In practice, knowledge and expertise are critical for effective functioning, and the available evidence suggests that older adults effectively employ specific knowledge and expertise and can gain new knowledge when it is required. 5 key findings →
Higher levels of accordance with both the DASH and Mediterranean dietary patterns were associated with consistently higher levels of cognitive function in elderly men and women over an 11-y period. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that accounts for the major cause of dementia, and the increasing worldwide prevalence of AD is a major public health concern. 4 key findings →
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to enhance the effects of cognitive training. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Appetite·2013-07-02
Given the reported health benefits of a Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) and delay in cognitive decline, we aimed to determine the level of adherence to a MedDiet using an 11-point scale and examine relationships with cognitive function and psychological well-being. 2 key findings →
Some evidence suggests that strategies which target multiple factors simultaneously may prove more effective than those focusing on a single mechanism or domain. 4 key findings →
Cognitive and depressive disorders are common in elderly Chinese and are becoming an increasingly important public health problem, partly because of the rapid aging of the population. 2 key findings →
Systematic cognitive training produces long-term improvement in cognitive function and less difficulty in performing activities of daily living. 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.