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 626–650 of 1,787 studies · tagged Diagnosis(page 26 of 72)· 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.
Dementia risk was significantly higher in patients with epilepsy compared with that of controls (IRR: 3.65; 95% CI: 3.14-4.24), especially within the first 2 years post-diagnosis (aHR: 5.42; 95% CI: 4.30-6.83), peaking between 8 and 10 years (aHR: 8.25; 95% CI: 3.15-21.5). 5 key findings →
Significant hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia incidence were found using the MMSE cutoff between 23 and 24 point (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13-3.27) and the J-Cog cutoff between 43 and 44 points (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.50-3.93). 4 key findings →
The final model, which included age, systolic blood pressure >140, atrial fibrillation, and tobacco use, achieved an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.90) in the development cohort (N=143, 62.4±12.6 years, 44% female, 36% non-white race) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) in the validation cohort (N=127, 65.2±16.8 years, 51% female, 34% non-white race), with similar results using WMH measurements derived from cMRI (N=120, p=0.98, AUC=0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.93). 5 key findings →
When validated with subjects diagnosed using an official test, the model achieves COVID-19 sensitivity of 98.5% with a specificity of 94.2% (AUC: 0.97). 5 key findings →
Service utilization by demented patients increases already within the year before the first diagnosis and stays on a relatively high level within the year after. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-08-03
Among 356 patients (79%) with AD as the primary suspected etiology, assessment of BBM classified 149 patients (42%) as high, 101 patients (28%) as intermediate, and 106 patients (30%) as low probability of AD. 5 key findings →
Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), and amyloid beta ratio (Aβ42/40) may have diagnostic and prognostic value in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Clinical therapeutics·2000-07-01
The results of this study suggest that naftidrofuryl is effective and well tolerated in treating the symptoms of vascular and mixed dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-01-01
The correct diagnosis of Parkinson's disease is important for prognostic and therapeutic reasons and is essential for clinical research. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2015-01-22
Key experiments using fibril-free AβO solutions demonstrated that while Aβ is essential for memory loss, the fibrillar Aβ in amyloid deposits is not the agent. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·1991-07-01
We conducted full diagnostic evaluations, including a comprehensive cognitive assessment battery, of a group of 32 elderly subjects with a clinically identified mild cognitive impairment and a group of 32 age-matched and education-matched normal subjects. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2004-04-01
The concept of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) draws attention to cognitive changes not severe enough to warrant the diagnosis of dementia. 1 key finding →
Synucleinopathies are clinically and pathologically heterogeneous disorders characterized by pathologic aggregates of α-synuclein in neurons and glia, in the form of Lewy bodies, Lewy neurites, neuronal cytoplasmic inclusions, and glial cytoplasmic inclusions. 2 key findings →
Florbetapir F18 has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for in vivo assessment of amyloid pathology in patients undergoing evaluation for Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
10 of the 1,775 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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.