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
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,151–1,172 of 1,172 studies · free to read · tagged Early Stage(page 47 of 47)· 31,380 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; 16,851 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.
Triggered by LPS and AGEs in food, inflammatory cytokines can enter the brain and stimulate microglial activation, inflammation, and oxidative damage. 5 key findings →
This study aims to comprehensively review the role of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) as a marker of astrocyte activation in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
The “WarioWare: Move It!” intervention significantly improved physical flexibility, joint range of motion, motor coordination, hand dexterity, and cognitive function among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia residing in rural LTCFs. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-21
Respondents who reported no difficulty deciding (DECIDE = 2) had substantially lower odds of SCD than those who reported difficulty (DECIDE = 1; aOR approximately 0.13; FDR < 0.05). 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-27
Early identification of cognitive impairment remains challenging in settings where comprehensive cognitive and clinical assessments are not available. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-27
Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are increasingly recognized as critical components of the disease progression in Alzheimers disease (AD), yet their relationship with neurodegeneration remain poorly characterized. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-28
Genome-wide genotypes were quality-controlled, imputed, functionally annotated (yielding 16,935 gene regions comprising 90,607 functional variants), and associated with latent EEG features using Bayesian reduced rank regression. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-03
Service members with traumatic brain injury are at approximately two- to four-fold higher risk of Alzheimers disease or related dementias than those without such an injury, with risk increasing with injury severity. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-04
INTRODUCTIONMultimodal biomarkers have transformed Alzheimers disease research, but the incremental contribution of each modality to predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains unclear. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-04
BackgroundAccurate prediction of progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimers disease (AD) is important for prognosis, patient management, and clinical trial enrollment. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-07
Alzheimers disease (AD) is characterized by substantial clinical and biological heterogeneity, with diverse neuroanatomical, cognitive, clinical, functional, and genetic risk profiles that are poorly captured by current diagnostic frameworks. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-08
BACKGROUNDSubjective cognitive decline (SCD) may precede mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but not all individuals with SCD progress to MCI. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-14
ObjectivesSubjective word-finding complaints (SWFC) are among the most frequent cognitive complaints in cognitively unimpaired older adults (CU). 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-16
--Clinical trajectories after a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) vary widely, so prognostic models must account for both the timing of subsequent diagnoses and unequal follow-up. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-16
IntroductionRemote cognitive assessments offer an accessible, scalable way to support clinical characterization and longitudinal monitoring of cognition. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-17
INTRODUCTIONDetermining whether plasma biomarkers are preferentially associated with Alzheimers disease (AD)-related rather than age-related brain atrophy patterns may clarify their prognostic and diagnostic clinical use. 5 key findings →
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.
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%),
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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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.