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 1,351–1,375 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage(page 55 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.
In the 98 participants with long follow-up, Centiloid = 26 provided the highest overall predictive value = 87% (NPV = 85%, PPV = 88%). 5 key findings →
When comparing SCD (N = 40) with NC (N = 45), mdALFFmean decreased at right inferior parietal lobule (IPL) of the frontoparietal network (FPN). 5 key findings →
Classification of MCI and HC displayed highest accuracy based on diffusion MRI, which besides demonstrated high correlation with clinical scores. 5 key findings →
Research on caregiver identity in the context of memory impairment has focused primarily on more advanced stages of the cognitive impairment trajectory (e.g., dementia caregivers), failing to capture the complex dynamics of early caregiver identity development (e.g., MCI; mild cognitive impairment caregivers). 5 key findings →
Given the importance of identifying dementia prodromes for future treatment efforts, we examined two methods of diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and determined whether empirically-derived MCI subtypes of these diagnostic methods were consistent with one another as well as with conventional MCI subtypes (i.e., amnestic, non-amnestic, single-domain, multi-domain). 2 key findings →
Men and women with MCI may to differ for which factors predict subsequent dementia although future analyses with greater power are needed to evaluate sex differences. 5 key findings →
This nFC-based assay accurately distinguishes MCI and AD plasma without EV isolation, offering a rapid approach requiring minute sample volumes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-02-16
Hippocampal atrophy and amyloid deposition seem to dissociate during the evolution of MCI, the atrophy increasing clearly and [(11)C] PiB retention changing modestly when conversion to AD occurs. 4 key findings →
Amyloid PET imaging is a novel diagnostic test that can detect in living humans one of the two defining pathologic lesions of Alzheimer disease, amyloid-β deposition in the brain. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-06-26
We hypothesize the population without dementia can be subdivided into participants with and without biological Alzheimer disease (AD) based on the combination of CSF Aβ42 and p-tau/t-tau (represented also by the p-tau/t-tau/Aβ42 ratio). 5 key findings →
Our findings suggest AD-type tau is not higher in LLD compared to non-depressed, cognitively unimpaired older adults and appears unlikely to contribute to lower gray matter volume in LLD, further underscoring the need to distinguish major depressive disorder from depressive symptoms occurring in early AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Radiology·2011-01-19
LSN analysis revealed that interconnectivity patterns of brain regions can be used to classify subjects with AD, those with aMCI, and CN subjects. 5 key findings →
In subjects with aMCI poor global cognitive performance at baseline, the worsening on executive functions and on functional status but not the worsening on memory functions are independently associated with the conversion to dementia of Alzheimer type at 1 year, follow-up. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Stroke·2008-01-03
Cognitively normal subjects with HTN (n=19) had decreased rCBF in the putamen, globus pallidus, bilaterally, and in the left hippocampus compared with normotensives (n=22). 1 key finding →
Our results revealed disease severity-related alterations of the thalamo-default mode network and thalamocortical connectivity in AD and MCI patients. 4 key findings →
We report kinetic modeling results of dynamic acquisition data from 0 to 100 min after injection with the tau PET tracer 18 F-AV-1451 in 19 subjects. 2 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.