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 23,726–23,750 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 950 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.
Four GPs and eleven physicians were interviewed, and four major themes emerged: (1) knowledge of best practices of BPSD management, (2) awareness of current challenges in BPSD management, (3) non-involvement, blame shifting and rationalisation: perceived reasons for the current challenges and (4) suggested solutions. 5 key findings →
The review included 45 studies and identified key components and processes for successfully implementing advance care planning in dementia care. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2026-09-17
Participants described AI tools as potentially helpful for obtaining information, monitoring patients, managing medications and appointments, providing companionship, and conducting logistical tasks. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·BMC Palliative Care·2026-03-07
Individuals with dementia were more likely to have staff or family members present at death, to receive documented decisions to shift to EOL care, have symptom assessments made the final week of life and prescription of injectables. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Aging and Disease·2025-01-01
Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) is a common disease in older people, characterized by damage to intracranial microvessels, leading to cognitive decline, increased risk of stroke, and dementia. 1 key finding →
With elevated HbA1c, greater LA-derived diol/epoxide ratios were associated with greater WMH volume (β [95% CI] = 0.565 [0.100, 1.030], p = 0.017), lower global BPF (β [95% CI] = -0.476 [-0.903, -0.048], p = 0.029), and poorer memory performance (β [95% CI] = -0.603 [-1.070, -0.136], p = 0.012), such that detrimental associations were observed only in T2DM. 5 key findings →
We investigated the effect of using smartphone-based calendars (Google and Outlook Calendar) on prospective memory in Alzheimer's disease (AD). we recruited two groups of participants with mild AD. 1 key finding →
There are significant opportunities for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to play important roles in the primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) beyond current practices. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is often underdiagnosed, especially at early stages when symptoms are mild, and patients may benefit from new and recently approved anti-amyloid therapies. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Digital health·2025-03-31
Remote monitoring (RM) technology can support home-based dementia care by enabling (in)formal caregivers to monitor the health and safety of people with dementia remotely. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Public health·2023-12-21
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the policy to reduce the reimbursement fee for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) on the number of PEG procedures performed among older adults with dementia. 2 key findings →
An Interprofessional Virtual Healthcare Neighborhood (VHN) was designed to deliver information, peer support, and professional guidance to caregivers of individuals with dementia. 2 key findings →
This study investigated the current status and distribution of Alzheimer's disease (AD) among Mongolian and Han individuals who were at least 55 years old and living in rural areas of Inner Mongolia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Not indexed·2023
Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 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.