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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,826–2,850 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 114 of 440)· 27,380 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; 12,859 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 57 out of 100.·Sleep medicine·2013-03-07
In this large series of PSG-confirmed and probable RBD cases that underwent autopsy, the strong association of RBD with the synucleinopathies was further substantiated and a wider spectrum of disorders which can underlie RBD now are more apparent. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2007-07-19
We observed that simvastatin is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia in subjects > or =65 years, using any of three models. 5 key findings →
Familial multiple system tauopathy with presenile dementia (MSTD) is a neurodegenerative disease with an abundant filamentous tau protein pathology. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature·2015-08-26
The hexanucleotide repeat expansion (HRE) GGGGCC (G4C2) in C9orf72 is the most common cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature·2014-03-05
A hexanucleotide repeat expansion (HRE), (GGGGCC)n, in C9orf72 is the most common genetic cause of the neurodegenerative diseases amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neuron·2013-10-01
A hexanucleotide GGGGCC repeat expansion in the noncoding region of the C9ORF72 gene is the most common genetic abnormality in familial and sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →
The finding that a GGGGCC (G4C2) hexanucleotide repeat expansion in the chromosome 9 ORF 72 (C9ORF72) gene is a common cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) links ALS/FTD to a large group of unstable microsatellite diseases. 3 key findings →
Cytoplasmic aggregation of TDP-43, accompanied by its nuclear clearance, is a key common pathological hallmark of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·The EMBO journal·2017-08-08
Neuronal inclusions of aggregated RNA-binding protein fused in sarcoma (FUS) are hallmarks of ALS and frontotemporal dementia subtypes. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Cell·2016-04-21
Microglia maintain homeostasis in the brain, but whether aberrant microglial activation can cause neurodegeneration remains controversial. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2018-09-24
Animal models of adult-onset neurodegenerative diseases have enhanced the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neuron·2019-05-07
Neuronal and synaptic loss is characteristic in many neurodegenerative diseases, such as frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) was used to assess patterns of grey matter atrophy in the aMCI subjects at each time-point compared to the control group. 4 key findings →
Ventricular enlargement may be an objective and sensitive measure of neuropathological change associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), suitable to assess disease progression for multi-centre studies. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2011-06-01
As ascertained by several operational definitions, MCI is a heterogeneous entity at the population level but progresses to dementia at rates higher than in normal elderly individuals. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-11-08
In a clinical sample, patients with nonamnestic MCI were more likely to develop DLB, and those with amnestic MCI were more likely to develop probable AD. 1 key finding →
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.
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.