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 4,101–4,125 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 165 of 440)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
Hypertension is a highly prevalent condition which has been established as a risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2020-07-10
A population of more than six million people worldwide at high risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are those with Down Syndrome (DS, caused by trisomy 21 (T21)), 70% of whom develop dementia during lifetime, caused by an extra copy of β-amyloid-(Aβ)-precursor-protein gene. 1 key finding →
Adults with DS have a significantly increased brain concentration of myo-inositol, and this is associated with reduced cognitive ability. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2016-06-02
To determine if proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS) detect differences in dementia status in adults with Down syndrome (DS), we used (1)H-MRS to measure neuronal and glial metabolites in the posterior cingulate cortex in 22 adults with DS and in 15 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. 5 key findings →
The brain is an inherently dynamic system, and executive cognition requires dynamically reconfiguring, highly evolving networks of brain regions that interact in complex and transient communication patterns. 2 key findings →
Non-amyloid, ubiquitinated cytoplasmic inclusions containing TDP-43 and its C-terminal fragments are pathological hallmarks of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a fatal motor neuron disorder, and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Cell stem cell·2013-12-01
Reprogramming somatic cells to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) resets their identity back to an embryonic age and, thus, presents a significant hurdle for modeling late-onset disorders. 5 key findings →
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a severe neurodegenerative condition characterized by loss of motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord. 3 key findings →
TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is the disease protein in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neuron·2019-02-27
TDP-43 proteinopathy is a pathological hallmark of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia where cytoplasmic TDP-43 inclusions are observed within degenerating regions of patient postmortem tissue. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neuron·2010-11-01
Video abstract The most common inherited form of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD) known stems from Progranulin (GRN) mutation and exhibits TDP-43 plus ubiquitin aggregates. 5 key findings →
Expanded hexanucleotide repeats in the chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 (C9orf72) gene are the most common genetic cause of ALS and frontotemporal degeneration (FTD). 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most prevalent age-related neurodegenerative disorder, is characterized pathologically by the accumulation of beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques and tau-laden neurofibrillary tangles. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease are associated with the cerebral accumulation of beta-amyloid and alpha-synuclein, respectively. 1 key finding →
Transactivation response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is a principal component of ubiquitinated inclusions in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions and in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 2 key findings →
We performed hypothesis-free linkage analysis and exome sequencing in a family with two siblings who had neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL). 3 key findings →
Transactivating response region DNA binding protein (TDP-43) is the major protein component of ubiquitinated inclusions found in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with ubiquitinated inclusions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Molecular cell·2018-08-09
In amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal degeneration (FTD), cytoplasmic aggregates of hyperphosphorylated TDP-43 accumulate and colocalize with some stress granule components, but how pathological TDP-43 aggregation is nucleated remains unknown. 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.