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 1,051–1,073 of 1,073 studies (page 43 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·npj Dementia·2025-08-04
By combining AI-assisted topic modelling and community engagement, this study aimed to advance the research landscape for Lewy body dementia (LBD). 1 key finding →
Neurodegenerative disorders (NDDs), primarily alzheimer, dementia, parkinson, and rare NDD disease, present an escalating global health crisis, currently affecting over 55 million older adults worldwide. 1 key finding →
A neuropathological study of Alzheimer type I (Alz I) and Alzheimer type II (Alz II) as well as Opalski (Opl) cells was performed serially on brain tissue from nine autopsied Wilson's disease (WD) cases. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·European Psychiatry·2026-06-01
The behavioural and mental health needs of people with PWS result from the interactions between biological vulnerabilities associated with having PWS and living in a changing and demanding environment. 4 key findings →
Frequently occurring copathology, most commonly with Alzheimer disease, leads to greater cognitive decline, increased likelihood of admission to a long-term care facility, and a higher risk of mortality. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 30 out of 100.·Cureus·2025-05-29
Levodopa/carbidopa is the cornerstone treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD), but in patients with dysphagia, there are limited options for the routes of administration. 5 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E-4 (APOE-4), serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4), and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of glucocerebrosidase (GBA) are some of the main altered genes in AD, PDD and DLB. 5 key findings →
The present study investigated the frequency and distribution of TUNEL-positive neurons in brains of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) in comparison with those in brains of Alzheimer's disease (AD), Down syndrome (DS) and non-demented elderly persons. 2 key findings →
The diagnostic significance of tau proteins in cerebrospinal fluids (CSF) has been described in many cases of dementia of Alzheimer type (AD). 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-19
BackgroundPathogenic variants in GCH1 have been associated with Parkinsons disease (PD), but the clinical phenotype and longitudinal disease course of GCH1-associated PD remain incompletely characterized. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-21
Cognitive and behavioural impairment frequently accompanies motor decline in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), with 15% of cases meeting the diagnostic criteria for frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-28
Impairment in the comprehension of morphosyntactic and transitivity information does not feature in current diagnostic guidelines for primary progressive aphasia (PPA) or Alzheimers Diseases (AD), despite research reporting delayed sensitivity or insensitivity of these clinical populations to these linguistic domains. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-03
Dopamine replacement therapy (DRT) alleviates motor symptoms in Parkinsons disease (PD) but can trigger hallucinations in a subset of patients, yet the neural basis of this selective vulnerability is unknown. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-11
Greater baseline WMH burden was associated with differential longitudinal progression in converters across eleven clinical outcomes, including cognition, gait, and functional independence (all q<0.05). 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-14
Gross brain findings help guide differential diagnosis, but their diagnostic value across major neurodegenerative diseases remains incompletely characterized. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-09-21
IntroductionFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a devastating disease that commonly results in early onset dementia, yet its rarity and heterogeneity limit large-scale research and clinical trials. 2 key findings →
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.