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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 401–425 of 1,164 studies (page 17 of 47)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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 53 out of 100.·Neurology·1986-07-01
Twenty-one patients with a clinical diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT) and 29 healthy, age-matched controls were studied using positron emission tomography (PET) and [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose to measure regional cerebral glucose consumption in the resting state. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2000-03-01
Registration of serial MRI volume images provides a powerful method of quantification of brain atrophy that can be used to monitor progression of AD in clinical trials. 1 key finding →
The semantic and non-fluent/agrammatic variants are largely associated with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 and tau pathology, respectively. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-12-01
Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scores 1) distinguish probable Alzheimer disease (AD) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects from nonamnestic MCI and no cognitive impairment (NCI) subjects, 2) help predict diagnosis at baseline, and 3) predict transition from NCI to MCI and from MCI to probable AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-10-01
Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) on postmortem MRI is sensitive to primary degenerative hippocampal pathology in the very old, but not specific for Alzheimer-type pathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2012-09-03
Compared with typical AD, hippocampal-sparing AD has more neurofibrillary tangles in the cortex and fewer in the hippocampus, whereas the opposite pattern is seen in limbic-predominant AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Radiology·2009-02-06
Semiautomated, individually specific quantitative MR imaging methods can be used to identify a pattern of regional atrophy in MCI that is predictive of clinical decline. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasingly recognized as a disconnection syndrome, which leads to cognitive impairment due to the disruption of functional activity across large networks or systems of interconnected brain regions. 4 key findings →
[(11)C]PIB retention in the neocortical and subcortical brain regions was significantly higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls. 3 key findings →
Early identification of dementia at the stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is crucial for timely diagnosis and intervention of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2012-11-07
Hippocampal volumetry derived from structural MRI is increasingly used to delineate regions of interest for functional measurements, assess efficacy in therapeutic trials of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has been endorsed by the new AD diagnostic guidelines as a radiological marker of disease progression. 4 key findings →
Serotonin (5-HT) neuron and neurotransmitter loss in normal aging and neuropsychiatric diseases of late life may contribute to behavioral changes commonly observed in the elderly population. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-01-01
Activated microglia may play a role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) as they cluster around beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Annals of Neurology·2007-08-07
We conclude that PiB-positron emission tomography can detect cerebrovascular beta-amyloid and may serve as a method for identifying the extent of CAA in living subjects.
Florbetaben PET shows high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of histopathology-confirmed neuritic β-amyloid plaques and may thus be a valuable adjunct to clinical diagnosis, particularly for the exclusion of AD.
Strong concordance between CSF biomarkers and Aβ-PET status was observed overall, including for cognitively normal participants, further strengthening the association between these markers of AD neuropathological burden for both developmental research studies and for use in clinical trials. 2 key findings →
10 of the 1,160 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.