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 6,801–6,825 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 273 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.
Comprehension deficits are common in stroke aphasia, including in cases with (i) semantic aphasia, characterized by poor executive control of semantic processing across verbal and non-verbal modalities; and (ii) Wernicke's aphasia, associated with poor auditory-verbal comprehension and repetition, plus fluent speech with jargon. 2 key findings →
Language performance deficits can appear early before impairment in episodic memory, visuospatial construction ability, or mental status in individuals at risk for MCI. 5 key findings →
Occupational noise exposure accounts for approximately 16% of all disabling hearing losses, but the true value and societal costs may be grossly underestimated because current regulations only identify hearing impairments in the workplace if exposures result in audiometric threshold shifts within a limited frequency region. 3 key findings →
Despite the extended study duration, participants demonstrated high compliance with the schedule of daily learning tasks and were extremely positive about their experiences. 2 key findings →
These data suggest that current treatment of late stage parkinsonism in the community remains insufficiently effective to alleviate disabling symptoms in many patients. 3 key findings →
The experimental results demonstrate that the SVM with RBF achieved an encouraging performance with sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and accuracy (ACC) values of 82.65%, 87.17%, and 84.35%, respectively (AUC = 0.861, 95% CI = 0.820-0.902), for the differential diagnosis between VaD and AD. 2 key findings →
Adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer neurofibrillary degeneration in the brain, but the underlying molecular mechanism is unknown. 1 key finding →
Disorders associated with early-life alterations in amyloid precursor protein production or processing are associated with a distinct pattern of early striatal fibrillary Aβ deposition before significant cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Mouse trisomy 16 has been proposed as an animal model of Down syndrome (DS), since this chromosome contains homologues of several loci from the q22 band of human chromosome 21. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2017-05-30
This study assesses whether C-terminal fragments (CTF) of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) are present in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and their potential as biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
The amyloid cascade hypothesis as the etiological underpinning of Alzheimer disease (AD) is supported by a large body of literature, the most influential of which are genetic studies of the 1980s and 1990s. Other evidence includes the neuropathology of Down syndrome, apparent toxicity of oligomeric amyloid-β (Aβ), interactions with apolipoprotein E, and the analogy of cardiac amyloidosis. 1 key finding →
There is an urgent need for objective markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related cognitive impairment in people with Down syndrome (DS) to improve diagnosis, monitor disease progression, and assess response to disease-modifying therapies. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2021-09-16
Adults with Down syndrome (DS) have an exceptionally high frequency of Alzheimer disease (AD) with a wide variability in onset, from 40 to 70 years of age. 2 key findings →
This review of age-related brain microvascular pathologies focuses on topics studied by this laboratory, including anatomy of the blood supply, tortuous vessels, venous collagenosis, capillary remnants, vascular density and microembolic brain injury. 1 key finding →
Classic textbook neurology teaches that amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a degenerative disease that selectively affects upper and lower motor neurons and is fatal 3-5 years after onset--a description which suggests that the clinical presentation of ALS is very homogenous. 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.