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
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,151–1,175 of 2,751 studies · tagged Other Dementias(page 47 of 111)· 30,180 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; 15,654 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.
Extracellular α-synuclein has been proposed as a crucial mechanism for induction of pathological aggregate formation in previously healthy cells. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2006-09-26
We have investigated the extent and pattern of immunostaining for ubiquitin protein (UBQ) in 60 patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with ubiquitin-positive, tau-negative inclusions (FTLD-U), 37 of whom were ascertained in Manchester UK and 23 in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK. 1 key finding →
In contrast to informal clinical evaluations of oculomotor dysfunction frequency (previous studies: 38%, current clinical examination: 33%), detailed eyetracking investigations revealed eye movement abnormalities in 80% of patients with posterior cortical atrophy (compared to 17% typical Alzheimer's disease, 5% controls). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·JAMA·2017-07-01
In a convenience sample of deceased football players who donated their brains for research, a high proportion had neuropathological evidence of CTE, suggesting that CTE may be related to prior participation in football. 3 key findings →
p-Tau217 levels were highest in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, whereas NfL levels were highest in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 5 key findings →
Abnormal levels of plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) were found at the prodromal stage of MCI-LB in association with increased amyloid PET. 4 key findings →
NFL discriminated patients from controls with an area under the curve of 0.914 (95% CI, 0.843-0.984; p < 0.001) (cut-off: 76.46 pg/mL; 94% sensitivity, 76.9% specificity). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Metabolites·2020-09-23
The neuropathology of Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) is heterogenous, and the impacts of each pathophysiology and their synergistic effects are not fully understood. 2 key findings →
Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson's disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. 5 key findings →
The ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) function is a multifaceted construct that reflects functionality in different daily life situations. 2 key findings →
Highly educated at-risk subjects had better cognition and higher grey matter volume at baseline; moreover, higher educational attainment was associated with slower loss of grey matter over time in mutation carriers. 2 key findings →
Among the compounds detected in greater abundance in the CSF of patients with DLB compared with patients with AD, only one had a xenobiotic profile potentially related to the pathophysiology of DLB. 5 key findings →
Age of acquisition of nouns (p = 0.034, |d| = 0.77) and lexical density (p = 0.0064, |d| = 0.72) were reduced in SYN + AD, and together showed excellent discrimination for SYN + AD vs. SYN-AD (95% sensitivity, 66% specificity; AUC = 0.82). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Brain·2005-03-17
Neurodegeneration in Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) affect cortical and subcortical networks involved in saccade generation. 5 key findings →
Linear models showed that plasma GFAP was significantly higher in αSyn+AD compared to αSyn (β = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.065-0.56, and P = 0.015), after covarying for age at plasma, plasma-to-death interval, and sex; plasma p-tau 181 was not (P = 0.37). 4 key findings →
10 of the 2,748 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.