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 5,926–5,950 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 238 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 48 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2014-10-08
Altered consciousness has been regarded as a core feature of delirium; the fact that consciousness itself should be physiologically disrupted due to acute illness attests to its clinical urgency. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease is characterized both by a lower mean level of functional connectivity as well as by diminished fluctuations in the level of synchronization. 2 key findings →
Magnetic resonance imaging-based volumetric measurements provide a useful technique for quantifying in vivo regional cerebral atrophy in Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Stroke·2005-09-22
The new MRI rating scale for WMH in cholinergic pathways is reliable and shows stronger correlations with cognitive performance than a general WMH rating scale in AD with WMH. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-08-01
A profile of equal impairment on tests of executive control and memory along with radiologic evidence involving about one-fourth of the cerebral white matter as measured by the Leukoaraiosis Scale may be sufficient for a diagnosis of subcortical vascular dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Stroke·2008-12-24
Simple MRI biomarkers, in addition to their diagnostic use, have a prognostic value with respect to mortality in a memory clinic population. 2 key findings →
There was an age-related increase in both 18 F-AV-1451 binding in the basal ganglia and R 2 * values in the putamen in both the controls and the Alzheimer disease/mild cognitive impairment patients. 18 F-AV-1451 binding in the basal ganglia increased with R 2 * values. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-11-22
Perivascular spaces (PVS) are fluid-filled compartments that are part of the cerebral blood vessel wall and represent the conduit for fluid transport in and out of the brain. 1 key finding →
The differential response to cholinergic challenge in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer patients may reflect a difference in the functional status of the cholinergic system between both groups, which is in line with recent results showing a differential clinical response to cholinergic treatment. 1 key finding →
18 F-SMBT-1 showed robust entry into the brain and reversible binding kinetics, with high tracer retention in basal ganglia, intermediate retention in cortical regions, and the lowest retention in cerebellum and white matter, which tightly follows the known regional brain distribution of MAO-B ( R 2 = 0.84). 5 key findings →
Family caregivers of people with dementia, often called the invisible second patients, are critical to the quality of life of the care recipients. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·EBioMedicine·2018-10-19
Trauma experienced during surgery can contribute to the development of a systemic inflammatory response that can cause multi-organ dysfunction or even failure. 3 key findings →
Chronic pain is highly prevalent among older adults where it is associated with significant suffering, disability, social isolation, and greater costs and burden to health care systems. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Stroke·2020-09-08
Understanding the relationship between infection and stroke has taken on new urgency in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 1 key finding →
Cerebral microbleeds (microbleeds) are small, punctuate hypointense lesions seen in T2* Gradient-Recall Echo (GRE) and Susceptibility-Weighted (SWI) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) sequences, corresponding to areas of hemosiderin breakdown products from prior microscopic hemorrhages. 1 key finding →
The QDRS provides a rapid method to determine study eligibility; stage patients in clinical practice; and improve case ascertainment in population studies. 2 key findings →
Anosognosia in those with Alzheimer's disease is manifested as poor awareness of deficits in iADL and bADL, depressive changes and behavioural disinhibition. 2 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.