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 22,026–22,050 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 882 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.
Epidemiological studies are associating elevated exposure to air pollution with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →
The third part of the DGP statement introduces the current body of knowledge on less studied health outcomes associated with exposure to ambient air pollution: the negative impact on metabolism leading to impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes as well as contribution to the development of neurodegenerative disorders and delayed cognitive function in children. 5 key findings →
The ageing trajectory is plastic and can be slowed down by lifestyle factors, including good nutrition, adequate physical activity and avoidance of smoking. 2 key findings →
Dementia and osteoporosis are multifaceted disease processes with similar epidemiology and a marked increase in prevalence in elderly populations. 5 key findings →
We reviewed the most recent literature examining the associations between the Mediterranean-style diet (MD), neurodegenerative diseases, and markers and mechanisms of neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
RECENT FINDINGS: Specific dietary patterns and varied nutrient combinations can have a protective effect on brain health, promote cognitive function, and mediate the comorbidity of chronic conditions associated with increased AD risk. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Nutrients·2020-07-03
The prevention or alleviation of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), is a challenge for contemporary health services. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) incidence is increasing and with no disease modifying agents available, preventative measures through lifestyle factors are being investigated. 5 key findings →
Although it is clear that nutrition affects physical and metabolic functions in humans, the importance of nutrition in mental illness has often been overlooked. 1 key finding →
Historically neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer's disease (AD) in particular, have been viewed to be primarily caused and driven by neuronal mechanisms. 1 key finding →
As one of the most harmful air pollutants, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has been implicated as a risk factor for multiple diseases, which has generated widespread public concern. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia in the elderly and, despite the tremendous efforts researchers have put into AD research, there are no effective options for prevention and treatment of the disease. 5 key findings →
Activation of innate immunity and the assembly of microglial cells at sites of Alzheimer disease pathology has long been regarded as bystander phenomenon, which does not actively contribute to disease pathogenesis and progression. 4 key findings →
Locus Coeruleus (LC) is the main noradrenergic nucleus of the central nervous system, and its neurons widely innervate the whole brain. 1 key finding →
Clinically, high levels of acrolein (a highly reactive α, β-unsaturated aldehyde) and acrolein adducts are detected in the brain of patients with CNS neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and spinal cord injury. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder leading to cognitive decline, neuropsychiatric symptoms, disability, caregiver burden, and premature death. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder, which is clinically associated with a global cognitive decline and progressive loss of memory and reasoning. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Cells·2020-07-04
Aging is characterized by a chronic low-grade sterile inflammation dubbed as inflammaging, which in part originates from accumulating cellular debris. 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 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.