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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,726–1,750 of 2,826 studies · tagged Other Dementias(page 70 of 114)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Human Genetics·2026-02-16
The majority of individuals at 50% risk of carrying a pathogenic variant causing frontotemporal dementia (FTD) chooses not to undergo presymptomatic genetic testing. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Theranostics·2025-07-25
These findings establish IF as a potent modulator of synaptic resilience in VaD, acting through coordinated preservation of synaptic structure, inhibition of inflammatory synapse loss, and metabolic reprogramming. 2 key findings →
In DLB, plasma concentrations of GFAP and NfL were associated with MTA, GCA-F, and Fazekas scale; and the Aβ42/40 ratio was associated with PA and Fazekas. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·NeuroSci·2026-03-20
The Benson Complex Figure Test (BCFT) is a neuropsychological tool designed to assess visuospatial construction and visual memory with lower complexity than traditional tests. 4 key findings →
The most common clinical symptoms in FTLD-TDP-PSP were memory loss (100%) followed by parkinsonism (80%), early falls (60%), and behavioral variant FTD (60%). 5 key findings →
Patients with DLB had significantly greater rates of hospitalization and ED visits compared to patients with AD (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR): 1.46, 95% CI 1.24, 1.73, IRR: 1.46, 95% CI 1.29, 1.77, respectively) and controls (IRR: 1.77, 95% CI 1.46, 2.14, IRR: 2.21, 95% CI 1.82, 2.69, respectively) and ED visits compared to those with VD (IRR: 1.24, 95% CI 1.03, 1.50). 5 key findings →
Participants with Lewy body dementia described losses associated with communication, continence, and energy leading to a progressive loss of independence. 5 key findings →
The goal of the present study was to clarify the clinical characteristics and laboratory results of parkinsonian symptoms among patients with and without camptocormia. 5 key findings →
The co-occurrence of both Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology and vascular brain injury (VBI) is very common, especially amongst the oldest of old. 2 key findings →
A dementing syndrome has been identified in a group of psychiatric cases aged 71-90 years, presenting initially with a subacute/acute confusional state, often fluctuating and associated with visual hallucinations and behavioural disturbances. 4 key findings →
We compare patterns of gray matter loss on MRI in subjects presenting as corticobasal syndrome (CBS) with Alzheimer disease pathology (CBS-AD) to those presenting as CBS with corticobasal degeneration pathology (CBS-CBD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-09-16
In bvFTD, they are in part related to hypothalamic degeneration, with potential disintegration of the network connections between the hypothalamus and orbitofrontal cortex/reward pathways. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology. Genetics·2016-05-26
We describe the largest series of patients with TARDBP mutations presenting with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and review the cases in the literature to precisely characterize FTD diseases associated with this genotype. 2 key findings →
Through various manifestations, social inappropriateness is frequently the first clinical sign of a neurodegenerative process, especially in AD and bvFTD, years before noticeable impairment on classical neuropsychological assessment and brain atrophy on imaging. 1 key finding →
It has been claimed that semantic dementia (SD), the temporal variant of fronto-temporal dementia, is characterized by an across-the-board deficit affecting all types of conceptual knowledge. 2 key findings →
9 of the 2,823 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 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.