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 1,651–1,675 of 2,751 studies · tagged Other Dementias(page 67 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.
Serum-NfL could be utilized as an accurate surrogate marker of CSF levels to segregate symptomatic CHMP2B carriers, presymptomatic carriers, and non-carriers. 3 key findings →
Current experimental outcomes provide a comparative analysis of various machine learning classifiers and confirm that using ensemble-based methods has improved medical diagnostic tasks. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature communications·2018-07-20
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) share key features, including accumulation of the RNA-binding protein TDP-43. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2020-09-12
Molecular PET shows expected correlations with Alzheimer-related pathology but lacks sensitivity to detect mild Alzheimer pathology in FTLD. 2 key findings →
AV-1451 is more sensitive and specific to Alzheimer's disease type tau and shows lower off-target binding, while THK5351 may mirror non-specific neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
Microglial activation was elevated in dementia with Lewy bodies subjects with mild disease when compared to those with moderate/severe impairment, where disease severity was indexed by cognitive performance on the revised Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination. 4 key findings →
Glutamate transporter solute carrier family 1, member 2 (GLT1/EAAT2), a major modulator of glutamate homeostasis in astrocytes, is assessed in post-mortem human brain samples of frontal cortex area 8 in advanced stages of Alzheimer disease (AD) and terminal stages of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) in order to gain understanding of astrogliopathy in diseases manifested by dementia. 4 key findings →
Lewy body disorders (LBD) are common neurodegenerative diseases characterized by the presence of aggregated α-synuclein in Lewy bodies and Lewy neurites in the central and peripheral nervous systems. 1 key finding →
Pure vascular parkinsonism without evidence of nigral Lewy body pathology may occur as a distinct clinicopathological entity, but a much more frequent occurrence is the comorbid presence of age-associated white matter lesions (WMLs) in idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD). 3 key findings →
Our results indicate that SHR share behavioral and neuropathological characteristics with human cSVD patients and further undergird the relevance of immune responses for the initiation and progression of cSVD. 4 key findings →
Each syndrome can be associated with one or more underlying neuropathological diagnoses and are referred to as frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2009-02-05
Although frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin/TDP-43-positive inclusions (FTLD-TDP) and Pick's disease are common pathological substrates in sporadic FTLD, clinical differentiation of these diseases is difficult. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2018-09-05
Utilizing the publicly available neuroimaging database enabled by Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI; http://adni.loni.usc.edu/ ), we have compared the performance of automated classification algorithms that differentiate AD vs. normal subjects using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Behavioural neurology·2006-01-01
We present a review of the literature on Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) together with the analysis of neuropschychological and neuroradiologic profiles of 42 PPA patients. 1 key finding →
There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the neuropathology of Alzheimer disease (AD) extends beyond amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. 2 key findings →
Animal models are an important aid in experimental medical science because they enable one to study the pathogenetic mechanisms and the therapeutic principles of treating the functional disturbances (symptoms) of human diseases. 2 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.