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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 851–875 of 1,229 studies in Neurology(page 35 of 50)· 27,380 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; 12,859 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 52 out of 100.·Neurology·1991-07-01
We conducted full diagnostic evaluations, including a comprehensive cognitive assessment battery, of a group of 32 elderly subjects with a clinically identified mild cognitive impairment and a group of 32 age-matched and education-matched normal subjects. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2000-06-01
The double dissociation in performance on semantic memory and attention/executive function clearly separated the temporal and frontal variants of FTD and aids the early differentiation of FTD from AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-10-12
Incorporating quantitative assessment of learning ability along with vMRI or CSF biomarkers in the clinical workup of MCI can provide critical information on risk of imminent conversion to AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-11-21
Rates of atrophy accelerate as individuals progress from amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) to typical late onset Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-04-01
Structural brain changes in anatomic areas involved in higher cognitive processes precede clinical signs and symptoms in longitudinally followed normal subjects destined to develop mild cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2008-01-01
A temporoparietal pattern of atrophy on MRI in patients with progressive fluent aphasia and relatively preserved processing speed is suggestive of underlying Alzheimer disease pathology rather than frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-only immunoreactive changes. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2012-08-01
The long-chain ω-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are potential candidates for interventions to delay Alzheimer disease (AD), but evidence from clinical studies is mixed. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·1994-01-01
We surveyed 1,545 subjects--recruited into the UK Medical Research Council elderly hypertension treatment trial between 1982 and 1987--to detect incident cases of dementia, identifying 50 cases of dementia, including 31 cases of probable or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·1999-04-01
Parkinsonism is a common disease among the elderly; its incidence increases steeply with advancing age and is consistently higher in men. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-04-01
The temporal variant of frontotemporal dementia follows a characteristic cognitive and behavioral progression that suggests early spread from one anterior temporal lobe to the other. 2 key findings →
✓ 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.·Neurology·2005-04-01
Oxidative damage occurs in the brain of subjects with mild cognitive impairment, suggesting that oxidative damage may be one of the earliest events in the onset and progression of Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2017-09-22
We analyzed CSF concentrations of neurogranin, β-amyloid (Aβ42), phosphorylated tau (p-tau), and total tau (t-tau) among 132 neurologically normal older adults (mean 64.5, range 55-85), along with bilateral hippocampal volumes and a measure of episodic memory (Auditory Verbal Learning Test, delayed recall). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-10-01
CSF biomarkers amyloid beta 1-42 (Abeta(42)), total tau (tau), and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau-181) are useful diagnostic markers for Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-03-31
We investigated whether specific SLEs are associated with AD pathology and neurodegeneration and how these associations differ by gender and education. 4 key findings →
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.