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 1,126–1,150 of 1,229 studies in Neurology(page 46 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 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-01-01
Apolipoprotein (apo) E, a multifunctional protein with central roles in lipid metabolism and neurobiology, has three common isoforms (apoE2, apoE3, and apoE4) with different effects on lipid homeostasis and neurobiology. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·1994-05-01
Several recent autopsy studies suggest that senile dementia of Lewy body type (SDLT) may be the second most common neuropathologic cause of dementia in the elderly, accounting for 7 to 30% of all cases. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-12-17
This well-characterized case of PCA syndrome due to AD in a very young patient with DS demonstrates the occurrence of atypical presentations in DS that might be overshadowed by the baseline intellectual disability associated with DS. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-10-01
This article discusses why CSF biomarkers found in normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) can be misleading when distinguishing NPH from comorbid NPH with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2018-02-07
In vivo [ 18 F]-AV-1451 PET neuroimaging was performed in 5 patients with sporadic CJD (median age, 66 years [63-74]), and results were compared to cognitively normal (CN) persons (n = 44; median age, 68 years [63-74]) and to participants with very mild Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia (n = 8; median age, 77 years [63-90]). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2012-12-26
Alzheimer disease (AD) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) may have overlapping clinical presentations despite distinct underlying neuropathologies, thus making in vivo diagnosis challenging. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-08-03
Eighty patients were included (mean age: 81 years, interquartile range 74-86 years; 36.2% female, ∼80% with dementia and Alzheimer disease). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·1988-10-01
Thirty cases of diffuse Lewy body disease (DLBD) have been reported, primarily by neuropathologists, but an associated clinical syndrome has not been clearly defined. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-03-05
Drug development for Alzheimer disease and other neurodegenerative dementias, including frontotemporal dementia, has experienced a long history of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that failed to show efficacy of investigational drugs. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-01-29
Clinical trials to advance the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) may expose research subjects to discrimination risks. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-01-22
Despite the presumptive common underlying neuropathology of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, the 2 groups displayed 2 different patterns of network perturbation, each concordant with the clinical presentation and the anatomy of neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-01-01
Because NAA is considered a marker of neuronal integrity, reduced medial temporal and parietal lobe NAA could be an early indication of dementia-related pathology in elderly individuals. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-08-31
= 0.032). In individuals with LOUE, elevated plasma p-tau217 was associated with both cognitive impairment and disrupted sleep microarchitecture, with the most pronounced cognitive deficits observed in individuals with medication refractory epilepsy. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-05-04
Blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) for Alzheimer disease (AD) offer widely expanded access to biomarker-informed diagnoses in community settings that have previously lacked such resources. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·1980-07-01
Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), a protein that is associated with 9-nm filaments of astrocytes, was observed to be increased in the astrocytes surrounding senile plaques in patients with Alzheimer dementia and in aged subjects without dementia. 2 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.