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 1,676–1,700 of 1,787 studies · tagged Diagnosis(page 68 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.
The StrongerMemory program, a structured intervention involving reading aloud, writing by hand, and completing simple math problems, is designed to stimulate the prefrontal cortex and enhance cognitive functioning. 5 key findings →
The present study was undertaken to validate the measurement of biomarkers as a supplement to the latest diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia by National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) work group using a sample attending a tertiary care center in Southern India. 4 key findings →
Identifying patients at risk for developing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD) remains challenging in clinical practice, even as scientific understanding of dementia advances generally. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·University of Chicago·2026-06-04
Dementia risk is influenced by biological and lifestyle factors as well as broader socioeconomic conditions; however, the extent to which socioeconomic deprivation creates structural exposures that affect cognitive aging remains unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2016-09-01
The results support the hypothesis that engaging in physical activity can compensate for urban-rural differences in cognitive performance in ageing. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Of 6,911,104 patients (min=Idaho: 45,160; max=California: 2.46 million), we observed a substantial difference in overall diagnosed prevalence across states of residence: Oregon and Montana had the highest diagnosed prevalence (6.6% and 6.5%, respectively); New Mexico had the lowest (2.3%). 4 key findings →
Alzheimer Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by amyloid-β deposition, tau pathology, synaptic dysfunction, neuronal injury and cerebral atrophy. 1 key finding →
Dementia, a progressive neurodegenerative disorder affecting memory, cognition, and behaviour, poses a major global health challenge in aging populations. 5 key findings →
Recent studies highlight the significance of plasma phosphorylated tau proteins, neurofilament light chain, and amyloid-beta ratios as reliable biomarkers. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Medical Studies·2025-11-19
Wprowadzenie Obniżenie poziomu funkcjonowania poznawczego to częsty problem osób w wieku podeszłym, zwłaszcza kobiet, a jednym z czynników ryzyka jest brak aktywności fizycznej. 5 key findings →
This study aimed to assess the diagnostic contribution of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) in neurodegenerative dementias presenting with language-predominant symptoms, with or without accompanying behavioral changes, and to evaluate the correspondence between PET-derived metabolic patterns and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. 4 key findings →
Corticobasal syndrome (CBS) is a combination of extrapyramidal disorders (asymmetric parkinsonism, dystonia, myoclonia) and cortical disorders (apraxia, disorders of complex types of sensitivity, the alien limb phenomenon). 3 key findings →
Parameters such as clinical status, GCA scale, MTA scale, Fazekas scale, strategic infarction, Koedam score, stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease do not have significant correlations with MoCA-INA scores. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder affecting millions globally, with early detection being critical for effective management. 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 →
While this process allows machine learning models to make more precise and reliable diagnoses, systems developed on the basis of Dr. Roman Poznanski's DOT (Dynamic Optimization of Thought) theory offer a new method in the diagnosis of neurological diseases. 5 key findings →
This review analyzes current data on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, and approaches to the treatment of cognitive impairments in diabetes mellitus (DM). 1 key finding →
Real-world, administrative claims data is uniquely suited to help characterize the journey of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients from the onset of disease symptoms through diagnosis and beyond. 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.