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 576–600 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage(page 24 of 86)· 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 quality of included studies with only a few longitudinal studies, limits the conclusions which may be drawn from the present findings especially regarding the biomarkers other than hippocampal volume. 4 key findings →
Frailty, a critical intermediate status of the aging process that is at increased risk for negative health-related events, includes physical, cognitive, and psychosocial domains or phenotypes. 3 key findings →
Our results provide additional evidence that depressive symptoms determine an additive risk effect to the progression to dementia in subjects with MCI. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-03-01
During follow-up, 57 (42%) patients with MCI developed Alzheimer's disease, 21 (15%) developed other forms of dementia, and 56 (41%) remained cognitively stable for 5.2 years (range 4.0-6.8). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2009-08-01
Of 179 persons (average age, 86.9 years) with probable AD, 87.7% had pathologically confirmed AD, and 45.8% had mixed pathologies, most commonly AD with macroscopic infarcts (n = 54), followed by AD with neocortical LB disease (n = 19) and both (n = 8). 1 key finding →
Standardized automated analysis of (18)F-FDG PET scans may provide an objective and sensitive support to the clinical diagnosis in early dementia. 1 key finding →
Progressive CMRglc reductions on FDG-PET occur years in advance of clinical DAT symptoms in patients with pathologically verified disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-11-01
The amnestic syndrome of the medial temporal type, defined by the Free and Cued Selective Recall Reminding Test, is able to distinguish patients at an early stage of Alzheimer disease from mild cognitive impairment non-converters. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Neurology·2004-02-01
These data support the use of rates of change from serial MRI studies in addition to standard clinical/psychometric measures as surrogate markers of disease progression in AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2001-07-01
We used MRI volume sampling with coregistered and atrophy corrected FDG-PET scans to test three hypotheses: 1) hippocampal formation measures are superior to temporal neocortical measures in the discrimination of normal (NL) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI); 2) neocortical measures are most useful in the separation of Alzheimer disease (AD) from NL or MCI; 3) measures of PET glucose metabolism (MRglu) have greater diagnostic sensitivity than MRI volume. 2 key findings →
We compared the predictive value of cerebral perfusion as measured by arterial-spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging (ASL-MRI) with MRI-derived hippocampal volume for determining future cognitive and functional decline and subsequent conversion from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 3 key findings →
Changes to everyday spoken language ("connected language") are evident in persons with AD dementia, yet little is known about when these changes are first detectable on the continuum of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
DCR outperforms the MMSE in detecting and classifying cognitive impairment-in a fraction of the time-while being not influenced by a patient's ethnicity. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Cell research·2019-09-06
Recently, increasing evidence has suggested the association between gut dysbiosis and Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression, yet the role of gut microbiota in AD pathogenesis remains obscure. 3 key findings →
This article gives a comprehensive overview of cytokine and other inflammation associated protein levels in plasma, serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2003-02-01
To accurately predict the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) at its predementia stage would be a major breakthrough from both therapeutic and research standpoints. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Neurology·2017-01-20
Early PD-MCI, regardless of persistence or reversion to normal cognition, has prognostic value for predicting dementia in patients with PD. 2 key findings →
Age and gender were observed to be associated with MCI, in which age was considered as an impact factor for DR. The strong heterogeneity may result from variations in study design and baselines. 5 key findings →
10 of the 2,141 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.