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
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 276–300 of 1,076 studies (page 12 of 44)· 30,980 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; 16,452 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 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-03-26
The quantification of these alterations with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET may allow for the objective assessment of the progression and treatment of this disease manifestation. 2 key findings →
Loss-of-function mutations in the GBA gene are associated with more severe cognitive impairment in PD, but the nature of these deficits is not well understood and whether common GBA polymorphisms influence cognitive performance in PD is not yet known. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·PloS one·2015-03-20
Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) needs to be distinguished from Alzheimer's disease (AD) because of important differences in patient management and outcome. 4 key findings →
Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) studies have found that patients with Alzheimer's dementia (AD) have abnormally low rates of cerebral glucose metabolism in posterior cingulate, parietal, temporal, and prefrontal cortex. 4 key findings →
Symptomatic females with genetic FTD had lower frontal cortical thickness than males, and the C9orf72 subgroup showed lower-than-expected frontal cortical thickness for a given level of executive functioning. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Brain·2025-05-05
The aetiology of HS-A is heterogeneous, but HS-A is strongly associated with limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy NC (LATE-NC). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurobiology of Aging·2002-12-28
This study traces the course of pathology in incidental and symptomatic Parkinson cases and proposes a staging procedure based upon the readily recognizable topographical extent of the lesions. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neurology·1996-11-01
We identified optimal staining methods for each of these and devised a protocol for the evaluation of cortical LB frequency based on a brain sampling procedure consistent with CERAD. 5 key findings →
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disorder affecting primarily the motor system, but in which extra-motor manifestations are increasingly recognized. 1 key finding →
A preceding article described the clinical features of Parkinson's disease dementia (PD-D) and proposed clinical diagnostic criteria for "probable" and "possible" PD-D. The main focus of this article is to operationalize the diagnosis of PD-D and to propose practical guidelines based on a two level process depending upon the clinical scenario and the expertise of the evaluator involved in the assessment. 5 key findings →
Among 141 consecutive patients with neuro-psychiatric abnormalities due to cobalamin deficiency, we found that 40 (28 percent) had no anemia or macrocytosis. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Medicine·1991-07-01
In addition, the hematocrit correlated significantly with severity, independent of the longer duration of symptoms in nonanemic patients. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2006-06-01
Clinical and neuropsychological features contribute to delineating the spectrum of pathology underlying a patient diagnosed with FTLD, but biomarkers are needed that, together with the clinical phenotype, can predict the underlying neuropathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2018-12-03
TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) aggregation is the most common pathological hallmark in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and characterizes nearly all patients with motor neuron disease (MND). 3 key findings →
10 of the 1,075 studies in this tag that have a study page, 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%),
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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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.