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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 426–450 of 1,073 studies (page 18 of 43)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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.
Relative to healthy controls, and after accounting for nonverbal executive performance, patients with bvFTD showed deficits of noun and verb naming and single word comprehension, diminished spontaneous propositional speech, and deterioration in naming performance over time. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·PloS one·2016-01-20
This study demonstrated the use of speech measures in the identification of those with an oral-motor deficit, and showed the usefulness of performing a relatively simple reading test to assess speech versus pause behaviors across the ALS-FTD disease continuum. 3 key findings →
So-called idiopathic rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behaviour disorder (RBD), formerly seen as a rare parasomnia, is now recognized as the prodromal stage of an α-synucleinopathy. 5 key findings →
As a more complete picture of the clinical phenotype of Parkinson's disease emerges, non-motor symptoms have become increasingly studied. 5 key findings →
The discovery that repeat expansions in the C9orf72 gene are a frequent cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) has revolutionized our understanding of these diseases. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2001-10-01
The authors studied the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic PD (IPD) in 100 consecutive clinically diagnosed cases that came to neuropathological examination. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2014-02-18
α-Synuclein species contained in PD-derived LB are pathogenic and have the capacity to initiate a PD-like pathological process, including intracellular and presynaptic accumulations of pathological α-synuclein in different brain areas and slowly progressive axon-initiated dopaminergic nigrostriatal neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2013-03-18
Increased awareness of cognitive and behavioural change in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has been driven by various clinic-based and population-based studies. 5 key findings →
To identify rare causal variants in late-onset Parkinson disease (PD), we investigated an Austrian family with 16 affected individuals by exome sequencing. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-01-24
The "Lister family complex," an extensive Swedish family with autosomal dominant Parkinson disease, was first described by Henry Mjönes in 1949. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2014-12-31
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) comprises two main classes of neurodegenerative diseases characterized by neuronal/glial proteinaceous inclusions (i.e., proteinopathies) including tauopathies (i.e., FTLD-Tau) and TDP-43 proteinopathies (i.e., FTLD-TDP) while other very rare forms of FTLD are known such as FTLD with FUS pathology (FTLD-FUS). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2018-11-21
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are neurodegenerative diseases that overlap in their clinical presentation, pathology and genetics, and likely represent a spectrum of one underlying disease. 4 key findings →
After expert panel review, only 50/67 patients met consensus criteria for DLB, 26/151 controls had a reduced MoCA, and 120/151 controls had a normal MoCA. 5 key findings →
Parkinson disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and multiple system atrophy are synucleinopathies, characterized by neuronal loss, gliosis and the abnormal deposition of α-synuclein in vulnerable areas of the nervous system. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Acta Neuropathologica·2025-05-02
Lewy body diseases are common neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson's disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies, which lead to both motor and non-motor symptoms. 1 key finding →
10 of the 1,072 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.