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 1,426–1,450 of 1,787 studies · tagged Diagnosis(page 58 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·1983-01-01
The nucleus basalis of Meynert, the major source of cholinergic innervation of the cerebral cortex, was morphometrically investigated in 58 cases of neuropsychiatric disorders and compared to 14 controls. 2 key findings →
A new chaos-wavelet approach is presented for electroencephalogram (EEG)-based diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) employing a recently developed concept in graph theory, visibility graph (VG). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2025-06-18
Tau protein aggregation is a hallmark of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease, making the development of anti-aggregation therapeutics a critical area of research. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Talanta·2023-05-16
Since there is no effective Alzheimer's disease (AD)-modifying therapy available currently, early analysis of AD core biomarkers has become one of great significance and common concern in clinical diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Thirty patients with dementia defined by DSM-III-R criteria (Alzheimer's disease (22), vascular dementia (3), Parkinson's disease, frontal lobe dementia, possible diffuse Lewy body dementia, normal pressure hydrocephalus and uncertain diagnosis), with scores below 24 points in the Mini-Mental Status Examination and more than 4 years of education were submitted to a neuropsychological evaluation. 4 key findings →
In the testing cohort, the super learner obtained a concordance statistic (95% confidence interval) of 0.822 (0.810, 0.835), higher than any of the individual ML models (Figure 1), and its predicted risk aligned with observed risk in calibration slope plots (Figure 2). 2 key findings →
This case report explores the therapeutic potential of lymphovenous bypass (LVB) surgery performed at the neck in neurodegenerative diseases, specifically Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·ALPHA PSYCHIATRY·2025-04-22
Most factors of the MoCA-B were significantly different between the two groups, and the PSCN group completed the MoCA-B faster (p 0.05). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Neuropsychology·2026-02-09
We observed measurement differences in the HCAP across H/L and NHW older adults for the memory, language, executive functioning, and orientation, but not visuospatial, domains. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·BMC Family Practice·2026-03-21
Four themes described current primary care practitioner practices in dementia diagnosis and management (1) Family concern triggers dementia investigation (2) GPs delay conversations about dementia (3) Completing routine cognitive assessments in the 75+ health assessment, and (4) Variability in post-diagnostic care. 4 key findings →
This study provides validated conversion tables between the Q mci screen and two widely-used cognitive instruments, to support the use of the Q mci screen in research (facilitating cross-instrument comparability and harmonization across studies), and clinical settings (determining eligibility for disease-modifying therapies). 2 key findings →
The Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Detection project focuses on identifying signs of Alzheimer’s disease at the earliest possible stage using advanced machine learning and medical imaging techniques. 3 key findings →
The Early Stages of Alzheimer’s Detection project focuses on identifying signs of Alzheimer’s disease at the earliest possible stage using advanced machine learning and medical imaging techniques. 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.