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 601–625 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage(page 25 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.
Our results indicate good diagnostic and prognostic performance of the plasma p-tau217+ Janssen assay, similar to the p-tau217 Lilly assay. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Clinical epigenetics·2020-06-15
Our work shows that peripheral differential methylation between age-matched subjects with AD relative to healthy controls will provide opportunities to further investigate and validate differential methylation as a surrogate of disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2022-10-17
To test whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) growth-associated protein 43 (GAP-43) concentration is elevated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia and its associations with other hallmarks of AD, we examined the CSF GAP-43 measurements of 787 participants (245 cognitively normal (CN), 415 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 127 individuals with AD dementia) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study. 4 key findings →
Widespread implementation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical settings requires improved accuracy for diagnosis of prodromal disease and for distinguishing AD from non-AD dementias. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·BMC Medicine·2025-05-02
Eighty older adults with MCI (median age 86.50 years) participated, with an average attendance rate of 86.25% in the intervention group. 5 key findings →
This study provides longitudinal evidence for a decline in driving performance over time, primarily in early-stage DAT, and supports the need not only for driving assessments, but also for reevaluation of individuals with very mild and mild DAT. 3 key findings →
N-p-tau217 and N-p-tau181 could improve diagnostic accuracy in prodromal-AD and clinical trial recruitment as both identify Aβ pathophysiology and differentiate early MCI-AD better than Mid-p-tau181. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Academic radiology·2008-09-01
Rationale and objectives Mild cognitive impairment has been regarded as a pre-Alzheimer condition, but some patients do not develop dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2013-12-01
CSF and amyloid PET measurements of Aβ were consistent in the majority of subjects in the cross-sectional and longitudinal populations. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·JAMA ophthalmology·2018-11-01
Fifty-eight eyes from 30 participants (53% female; mean [SD] age, 74.5 [5.6] years; age range, 62-92 years) were included in the analysis. 4 key findings →
Pathologic staging systems suggest that autonomic dysfunction may be an early manifestation of Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Nature aging·2023-05-18
Longitudinal multimodal biomarker studies reveal that the continuum of Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes a long latent phase, referred to as preclinical AD, which precedes the onset of symptoms by decades. 5 key findings →
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was recently proposed as a cognitive screening test for milder forms of cognitive impairment, having surpassed the well-known limitations of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is thought to progress from normal cognition through preclinical disease and ultimately to symptomatic AD with cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Among all participants, high p-tau217 alone [p-tau217(+)NfL(-)GFAP(-)] was associated with a steeper decline in episodic/semantic memory and processing speed compared to the all-low group (p ≤ 0.02). 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.