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 4,026–4,050 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 162 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.
Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is a parasomnia that is characterized by loss of muscle atonia during REM sleep (known as REM sleep without atonia, or RSWA) and abnormal behaviours occurring during REM sleep, often as dream enactments that can cause injury. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2016-04-09
Vascular dementia (VaD) is recognised as a neurocognitive disorder, which is explained by numerous vascular causes in the general absence of other pathologies. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Human mutation·2012-07-02
The Alzheimer disease and frontotemporal dementia (AD&FTLD) and Parkinson disease (PD) Mutation Databases make available curated information of sequence variations in genes causing Mendelian forms of the most common neurodegenerative brain disease AD, frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), and PD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2018-03-06
Intravitam PET and postmortem studies have revealed a more pronounced cortical atrophy, elevated cortical and limbic Lewy body pathologies, higher Aβ and tau loads in cortex and striatum in DLB compared to PDD, and earlier cognitive defects in DLB. 2 key findings →
The findings support recent data indicating that the MoCA is superior to the MMSE as a global assessment tool, particularly in discerning earlier stages of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2010-06-01
These findings cross-validate the previously published CDR-SB interpretative guidelines for staging dementia severity and extend those findings to a large heterogeneous sample of patients with dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-09-01
Patterns of gray matter loss are associated with neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) pathology, specifically with NFT burden at Braak stages III and IV and with Braak stage itself at higher stages. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-12-01
Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scores 1) distinguish probable Alzheimer disease (AD) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects from nonamnestic MCI and no cognitive impairment (NCI) subjects, 2) help predict diagnosis at baseline, and 3) predict transition from NCI to MCI and from MCI to probable AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-12-21
This approach to the detection of individuals at high risk for preclinical AD-identified in single CN individuals using this quantitative ADsig MRI biomarker-may provide investigators with a population enriched for AD pathobiology and with a relatively high likelihood of imminent cognitive decline consistent with prodromal AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-10-01
Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) on postmortem MRI is sensitive to primary degenerative hippocampal pathology in the very old, but not specific for Alzheimer-type pathology. 5 key findings →
The correlation between white and gray matter disappeared after partial-volume correction in 11 C-PIB ( r 2 = 0) but persisted for 18 F-flortaucipir ( r 2 = 0.27), demonstrating that the correlation between white and gray matter signal in 18 F-flortaucipir is not solely due to partial-volume effects. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Nature communications·2019-10-25
The tau protein aggregates in aging and Alzheimer disease and may lead to memory loss through disruption of medial temporal lobe (MTL)-dependent memory systems. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Stroke·2008-04-24
The risk of vascular or mixed dementia, but not of other types of dementia, was significantly increased in MCI patients with a large amount of subcortical hyperintensities at baseline. 5 key findings →
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.