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 1,401–1,425 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage(page 57 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.
These results suggest that increased baseline hallucinations, apathy and anxiety are associated with current and future disease progression in AD. 3 key findings →
When the clinical syndrome of MCI evolves on a neurodegenerative basis, the multiple-domain type of MCI has a less favorable prognosis than the amnestic type and may represent a more advanced prodromal stage of dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Sleep·2016-06-01
Study objectives To evaluate the role of orexin-A with respect to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers, and explore its relationship to cognition and sleep characteristics in a group of cognitively normal elderly individuals. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2006-03-29
Neurofibrillary degeneration in the nucleus basalis and a loss of its cortical cholinergic projections are prominent components of the neuropathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
25 older individuals with MCI performed a visual scene encoding task during fMRI scanning, and were followed clinically for at least 4 years after scanning. 4 key findings →
Recent studies indicate that there is a marked reduction in trkA-containing nucleus basalis neurons in end-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
From a prospective Memory Clinic cohort including consecutively referred patients, age 60 years or above, and with MMSE score 20 or above, 36 patients with AD and 30 with MCI were included in this study. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2013-04-30
We examined differences in cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by Arterial Spin Labeled perfusion MRI (ASL MRI) across the continuum from cognitively normal (CN) older adults to mild Alzheimer's Disease (AD) using data from the multi-site Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →
The objective of this analysis was to develop a nonlinear disease progression model, using an expanded set of covariates that captures the longitudinal Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·NeuroImage Clinical·2025-01-01
• SCD patients showed attenuation of sensory (P1, N1, P2) and cognitive (P300, P600, P900) components, with performance-related gains. • MCI patients exhibited neural compensations, reversing the downward trend observed in SCD, which resulted in a non-monotonic pattern of ERPs. • The progression of cognitive decline was linked to electrophysiological discontinuity, suggesting resilience mechanisms in both low and higher order cognitive regions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC Oral Health·2025-06-03
Of the participants, 25, 92, and 61 were classified as cognitively normal, with mild cognitive impairment, and with dementia, respectively. 5 key findings →
SSRI treatment showed no significant effect on AD dementia progression (hazard ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 4.38) or cognitive trajectories, regardless of AD pathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Acta Psychologica·2026-01-23
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is increasingly recognised as a potential preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease, yet the physiological mechanisms underlying its progression remain poorly understood. 4 key findings →
BackgroundLet's Talk Tech (LTT) is a self-administered web intervention for people with memory loss and their care partners that supports decision-making about digital health technologies. 5 key findings →
Florbetapir F 18 appears to have a wide effective dose range and a high test-retest reliability for both quantitative (SUVr) values and visual assessment of the ligand.
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to enhance the effects of cognitive training. 1 key finding →
Comparative effectiveness of behavioral interventions to mitigate the impacts of degeneration-based cognitive decline is not well understood. 4 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.