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 1,101–1,125 of 1,787 studies · tagged Diagnosis(page 45 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.
Progressive supranuclear palsy-parkinsonism (PSP-P) is a primary tauopathy characterised by neurofibrillary degeneration, which is frequently mistaken for Parkinson's disease (PD), multiple system atrophy (MSA), and vascular parkinsonism (VP) at presentation. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2024-11-01
Considering the significant impact of dementia, the Italian Ministry of Health entrusted the Italian National Institute of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanità) with the development of a guideline within the Italian National Guideline System (Sistema Nazionale Linee Guida, SNLG) on the diagnosis and treatment of dementia and MCI. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Human brain mapping·2015-12-21
Cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with reduction in hippocampal volume in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 3 key findings →
Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →
Careful design and user-testing should be made a priority in the development of computerized assessment interfaces, as well as reevaluating the cognitive assessment process to minimize patient anxiety and discomfort. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2003-07-01
Plasma Abeta measures increase with age, but, in contrast to reports on familial AD, plasma Abeta measures were neither sensitive nor specific for the clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or sporadic AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2018-04-09
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease where biomarkers for disease based on pathophysiology may be able to provide objective measures for disease diagnosis and staging. 1 key finding →
Phosphorylated-tau 217 (pTau217) is currently the most promising blood-based biomarker for accurately detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) presents a critical global challenge, accounting for over 60 % of the 57 million current dementia cases worldwide, with prevalence projected to exceed 100 million by 2050. 5 key findings →
Health-monitoring technologies for automatically detecting the early signs of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have become increasingly important. 3 key findings →
The recent advent of anti-amyloid-β monoclonal antibodies has introduced new demands for MRI-based screening of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, particularly the hemorrhage subtype (ARIA-H). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2022-12-13
An international consensus report in 2019 recommended a classification system for limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic changes (LATE-NC). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Sensors·2020-06-06
We present a model for digital neural impairment screening and self-assessment, which can evaluate cognitive and motor deficits for patients with symptoms of central nervous system (CNS) disorders, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), or dementia. 1 key finding →
Brain 18F-FDG PET scans interpreted with Neurostat and 3D-SSP displays accurately detected Alzheimer disease in patients with primary progressive aphasia or corticobasal syndrome as focal-onset dementias. 2 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.