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 1,001–1,025 of 1,229 studies in Neurology(page 41 of 50)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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 49 out of 100.·Neurology·1994-10-01
We studied the clinical features, pathology, and molecular genetics of a family (Mo) with an autosomal dominant disinhibition, frontal lobe dementia, parkinsonism, and amyotrophy. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2010-08-01
Nonfluent speech in PNFA may be due in part to difficulty with grammatic processing associated with left inferior frontal and anterior-superior temporal disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2004-02-01
Amyloid precursor protein (APP), ADAM 10, and beta-site-APP cleaving enzyme (BACE) alterations were evaluated in platelets of 31 patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and 15 age-matched controls. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-05-01
Polycystic lipomembranous osteodysplasia with sclerosing leukoencephalopathy (PLOSL), or Nasu-Hakola disease, is a presenile dementia associated with loss of myelin, basal ganglia calcification, and bone cysts. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-01-12
Aducanumab was granted accelerated approval with a conflicting evidence base, near-unanimous Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee vote to reject approval, and a widely criticized launch price of $56,000 per year. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·1995-03-01
This report summarizes the neuropathologic findings in the first 106 autopsies of CERAD (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease) dementia patients diagnosed clinically as having Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-02-06
= 0.64). In AD-relevant regions, increased free water correlates with tau load independently of macrostructural metrics or amyloid load. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-10-03
In the HELIAD sample, among 618 cognitively healthy participants (mean age 73.37 years, 58.4% female), followed for 2.92 ± 0.80 years, 73 developed AD/aMCI. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-04-18
= 0.143). LVI was significantly associated with incident ischemic stroke in the MI cohort (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.08-3.09), but not in the CCA cohort. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-08-01
Genetic pathways implicated in causing AD are related to altered levels of soluble tau through both Aβ-dependent and Aβ-independent mechanisms, which may have relevance for anti-tau drug development. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-10-01
A total of 1,156 Mexican American and 587 non-Hispanic White participants were included (mean age = 68 years, standard deviation = 10; 65% female). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2004-09-01
Although possession of the APOE epsilon4 allele is a risk factor for AD in old age, it does not modify the progression of the disease during the preclinical period. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2012-10-24
APOE affects microstructural properties of the brain WM from early adulthood, but the specific allelic effects do not directly reflect the associated risk of developing Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2012-02-01
Our findings show that the presence of Aβ in the brain, known to occur in about one-third of asymptomatic elderly individuals, is actually a pathologic state associated with accelerated atrophy. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-08-01
A profile of equal impairment on tests of executive control and memory along with radiologic evidence involving about one-fourth of the cerebral white matter as measured by the Leukoaraiosis Scale may be sufficient for a diagnosis of subcortical vascular dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-11-22
Perivascular spaces (PVS) are fluid-filled compartments that are part of the cerebral blood vessel wall and represent the conduit for fluid transport in and out of the brain. 1 key finding →
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.