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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 551–575 of 1,022 studies (page 23 of 41)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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 49 out of 100.·The EMBO journal·2008-01-01
The etiologies of neurodegenerative diseases may be diverse; however, a common pathological denominator is the formation of aberrant protein conformers and the occurrence of pathognomonic proteinaceous deposits. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2007-06-14
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) encompasses a heterogeneous group of clinical syndromes that include frontotemporal dementia (FTD), frontotemporal dementia with motor neurone disease (FTD/MND), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA), semantic dementia (SD) and progressive apraxia (PAX). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2006-08-01
The neurotrophins nerve growth factor (NGF) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) are important mediators of brain and neuronal development, the maintenance of homeostatic conditions in the adult nervous system, and the complex interplay of central and peripheral physiological and pathophysiological factors. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·PloS one·2010-03-24
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a common late-onset neurodegenerative disease, is associated with fronto-temporal dementia (FTD) in 3-10% of patients. 4 key findings →
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a group of progressive neurodegenerative disorders with different pathological signatures, genetic variability and complex disease mechanisms, for which no effective treatments exist. 4 key findings →
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disease associated with accumulation of misfolding proteins and increased neuroinflammation, which may further impair the glymphatic system. 4 key findings →
NfL holds potential as a blood-based biomarker for symptomatic genetic FTD carriers, with moderate accuracy to distinguish PPD from mild forms including C9orf72 . 3 key findings →
In the cohort, 39.2% (67/171) tested positive by α-syn SAA. α-syn SAA positivity was more frequently detected alone than in combination with biomarkers of AD pathology (25.1% vs. 14.0%). α-syn SAA+ status was independently associated with higher odds of fluctuating cognition (OR 2.99, 95%CI 1.46–6.25, p = 0.012), visual hallucinations (OR 2.41, 95%CI 1.24–4.75, p = 0.027), extrapyramidal signs (OR 4.57, 95%CI 2.35–9.11, p < 0.001) and akinetic mutism (OR 3.77, 95%CI 1.22–12.82, p = 0.038). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Nature Communications·2025-11-25
Dementia is a defining feature of Lewy body disease: its timing and onset distinguish different clinical diagnoses, and its effect on quality of life is profound. 1 key finding →
Males were more likely than females to present with two or more core DLB clinical features 2 years prior to obtaining a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →
In the central Lewy body diseases (LBDs) Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), by the time parkinsonism or cognitive dysfunction manifests, substantial central neurodegeneration has already occurred. 5 key findings →
Intravitam PET and post-mortem studies revealed more pronounced cortical atrophy, elevated cortical and limbic Lewy pathologies (with APOE ε4), apart from higher prevalence of Alzheimer pathology in DLB than PDD. 2 key findings →
10 of the 1,021 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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.
Show only studies that are free to read
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.