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 1,676–1,700 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage(page 68 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.
Fourteen participants (21.5%) converted to MCI, and 24 (36.9%) were classified as Prog-1.Plasma biomarkers did not show consistent predictive performance across predefined endpoints (all p>0.05), although NfL demonstrated modest discrimination for MCI conversion (area under the curve [AUC] 0.686, p=0.008).Hippocampal volume demonstrated significant discriminative performance for MCI conversion (AUC 0.765, p=0.016) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.933, p<0.001).For Prog-2, hippocampal volume showed high discrimination (AUC 0.952, p<0.001).WMH grade also demonstrated significant discrimination for MCI conversion (AUC 0.835, p<0.001) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.857, p<0.001).Bootstrap analyses (1,000 iterations) tended to show higher AUC estimates for imaging markers compared with plasma biomarkers. 2 key findings →
Cognitive decline is a condition affecting almost one sixth of the elder population and is widely regarded as one of the first manifestations of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Predicting the transition from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) has important clinical significance for dementia prevention and improving patient prognosis. 4 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an early stage of non-age-related cognitive decline with an increased risk of progressing to dementia. 4 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) represents a transitional stage between normal aging and dementia, often considered critical for dementia prevention. 1 key finding →
At baseline, SCDp were older, had a higher prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and had worst performance on tests related to processing speed, verbal fluency, visual memory, verbal memory, and executive functioning. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·BMC Geriatrics·2025-01-23
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex, progressive, and irreversible neurodegenerative disorder marked by cognitive decline and memory loss. 1 key finding →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a condition characterized by noticeable deficits in memory retrieval or other cognitive domains than the individuals with the same age but do not significantly interfere with daily functioning. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-10-13
The aim of this study is to build and validate a model based on structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) to predict the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
In amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), neuroinflammation evolves during disease progression, affecting microglial function and potentially accelerating the pathological process. 4 key findings →
Event-related potentials (ERPs), particularly the P200 component, have been studied as potential biomarkers, but conventional grand-averaged approaches often yield inconsistent results. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·PubMed Central·2026-06-01
Multicomponent and transdisciplinary interventions focused on the family member–patient dyad have the potential to optimize cognitive outcomes and quality of life. 1 key finding →
To date, the impact of cognitive therapies on patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been studied in terms of cognition, quality of life and activities of daily living rather than in the context of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). 5 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease research has progressed from basic mechanism exploration to a multidisciplinary, integrated clinical-basic stage, following an evolutionary path of "pathological mechanism - clinical phenotype - biomarker - intervention strategy." 2 key findings →
The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the science related to non-pharmacological interventions designed to slow decline for older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment or early-stage dementia. 2 key findings →
Our results show that regarding end-of-life preferences for patients, there is moderate agreement between patients and their spouses, but limited evidence for projection of spouses' preferences on patients (i.e. spouse making a prediction based on own wishes). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2006-09-25
Structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was performed on 21 healthy elderly controls, 14 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 15 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) to investigate changes in fMRI activation in relation to underlying structural atrophy. 2 key findings →
9 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 9. The same 9 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.