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 1,476–1,500 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage(page 60 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.
Tau is a microtubule-associated protein that forms neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in the selective vulnerable long projection neurons of the cholinergic basal forebrain (CBF) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2006-08-10
To clarify the involvement of the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) in Alzheimer's disease (AD), we analyzed brain volume loss by voxel-based morphometry. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Behavioural neurology·2009-01-01
Amyloid imaging represents a major advance in neuroscience, enabling the detection and quantification of pathologic protein aggregations in the brain. 5 key findings →
Although the two pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), senile plaques composed of amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) consisting of hyperphosphorylated tau, have been studied extensively in postmortem AD and relevant animal and cellular models, the pathogenesis of AD remains unknown, particularly in the early stages of the disease where therapies presumably would be most effective. 2 key findings →
Poor subjective sleep quality is linked to reduced brain volume and cortical thickness (CTh), but associations with objective sleep measures, particularly regarding sex and AD pathology, remain unclear. 4 key findings →
Although preclinical dementia is characterized by decline in cognition and daily functioning, little is known on their temporal sequence. 4 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been considered a transitional state between normal aging and dementia, characterised by memory impairment but normal general cognitive functioning. 4 key findings →
Four cognitive phenotypes emerged. One phenotype (18% of Aβ+ participants) showed the steepest cognitive decline, highest progression on the CDR, greater baseline medial temporal tau, and fastest neocortical tau accumulation over 4.6 years (hazard ratio [HR] for decline ≈ 2.9). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-01-15
Lifestyle factors and ambient air pollution are linked to dementia and CMDs, yet few studies have investigated their impact on dementia risk in CMDs patients at the same time. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Advanced Science·2026-03-30
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is marked by progressive cognitive decline, highlighting the importance of cognitive assessment in both clinical practice and research. 1 key finding →
These results provide clear evidence that CU older adults with both amyloid plaques and tau aggregates measured with PET will develop cognitive impairments if the disease is not stopped. 2 key findings →
The Level 3 model achieved high classification performance (AUC: 93.98%), and the Level 1 model achieved comparable performance (AUC: 91.53%). 5 key findings →
During a 7-year median follow-up, type 2 diabetes was associated with the highest risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.31), followed by hypertension and hyperlipidemia. 5 key findings →
Dementia developed in 104 individuals (29.6%), including 85 (22.4%) who met core clinical criteria for probable and possible Alzheimer's disease dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·BMC Public Health·2025-06-02
The results indicated that residence location, alcohol consumption, life satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and education level are key factors influencing the risk of MCI among older adults with functional disability. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·IEEE Access·2025-01-01
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) presents a significant global health challenge, necessitating accurate and early prediction methods for effective intervention and treatment planning. 3 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.