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 926–950 of 1,787 studies · tagged Diagnosis(page 38 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.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent dementia, but it shows similar initial symptoms to other neurocognitive diseases (Lewy body disease (LBD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD)). 1 key finding →
Pairwise comparisons among the three groups showed that compared with the health checkup (HC) group, serum NfL and GFAP were increased in both AD and MCI (PNfL < 0.05, PGFAP < 0.01). 5 key findings →
Among diagnostic groups, highest plasma Nfl and t-tau concentrations were detected in CJD (fold changes of 38 and 18, respectively, compared to HC). 5 key findings →
Pre-analytical immunoprecipitation resulted in a significant increase in the area under the ROC curve (AUC) from 0.73 to 0.88 (p = 0.01547) for identifying subjects with abnormal CSF Aβ42/40. 4 key findings →
The proteomic profile discriminated DLB and PD from NC with an AUC (Area Under the Curve) of 0.96 with demographics of age, sex and education. 4 key findings →
There were significant positive correlations between the predicted MMSE scores and ground truth scores in the Patient and Healthy groups (r = 0.66, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
By incorporating sex, place of residence, age, and years of education as covariates, the TabCAT-BHA demonstrated greater accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment (AUC = 75.3%) compared to the MMSE (AUC = 66.4%) and RUDAS (AUC = 71.4%). 3 key findings →
Average adherence was 41%. Despite this, remote measures demonstrated excellent reliability (ICCs > 0.90 after 10 sessions) and strong construct validity, with tasks loading onto memory, attention, and executive function domains. 5 key findings →
Why assessment is of practical consequence to anaesthetistsGeneral Health Questionnaire (GHQ) in general hospitals: selecting a set of items using a stepwise hierarchical procedurePain assessment in cognitively impaired and unimpaired older adults: a comparison of four scalesMental disorders among internal medical inpatientsSuicide in Later Life: A Review and Recommendations for PreventionDELIRIUM IN THE TERMINALLY ILLRecognition of psychiatric disorders in nonpsychiatric hospital wardsNursing documentation versus standardized assessment of cognitive status in hospitalized medical patientsCompleted Suicide Among Older Patients in Primary Care Practices: A Controlled StudyDoes myasthenia gravis affect the brain?SUICIDAL PATIENTS IN THE ED: ETHICAL ISSUESMethodological issues of an epidemiological study: From the results of a study on psychological problems seen in outpatients visiting the internal medicine departments of general hospitalsPsychiatric disorders and vertigoTotal Quality Management and Geriatric CareAssessment and treatment of depression in the cancer patientUse of hospital services by AIDS patients with psychiatric illnessNeuropsychological and Pharmacokinetic Assessment of Hospice Inpatients Receiving MorphineMANAGEMENT OF SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR IN THE ELDERLYLiteraturverzeichnisSuicide in later lifeMajor depression in the primary care settingMaking the diagnosis of depression in the primary care settingThe Mini-Mental State Examination in General Medical Practice: Clinical Utility and AcceptancePsychological Morbidity in Obstetric-Gynaecology Patients: Testing the Need for Expanded Psychiatry Services in Obstetric-Gynaecology FacilitiesPrevalence of Psychiatric Disorders in Medical InpatientsTranstornos do humor em enfermaria de clínica médica e validação de escala de medida (HAD) de ansiedade e depressãoDelirium in Elderly Patients: Evaluation and ManagementDelirium Presenting With Symptoms of DepressionAnalysis of the terms used by general practitioners to characterize patients considered by them as depressed.
The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened three separate work groups in 2011 and single work groups in 2012 and 2018 to create recommendations for the diagnosis and characterization of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
We investigated whether the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers beta-amyloid 1-42 (Abeta1-42), total tau (t-tau) protein and tau protein phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau181) could discriminate Alzheimer's disease (AD) from vascular dementia (VD) patients. 4 key findings →
Our findings provide evidence that greater concentrations of KP metabolites are associated longitudinally over two years with greater biomarker evidence of neurofibrillary tau pathology (pTau-181), neuroinflammation (GFAP), and neurodegeneration (NfL), suggesting that dysregulated KP metabolism may play a role in ADRD pathogenesis. 4 key findings →
Debate exists regarding differences in the prevalence of Alzheimer disease (AD) in African Americans and Hispanics in the United States, with some evidence suggesting that the prevalence of AD may be considerably higher in these groups than in non-Hispanic whites. 2 key findings →
We describe the full history and postmortem findings in one of the first identified cases of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy with stroke-like episodes (MELAS). 5 key findings →
The objectives of this study were to assess whether Teng's modification of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) improves its performance as a screening test for cognitive impairment and dementia, and to replicate this comparison in French and English language groups, and for differing assumptions concerning the relative importance of false negative and false positive errors. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2015-09-28
Previous studies have indicated a prevalence of dementia in older admissions of ∼42% in a single London teaching hospital, and 21% in four Queensland hospitals. 1 key finding →
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.