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 1,151–1,175 of 1,229 studies in Neurology(page 47 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 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-09-16
In bvFTD, they are in part related to hypothalamic degeneration, with potential disintegration of the network connections between the hypothalamus and orbitofrontal cortex/reward pathways. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-11-01
Older adults who report more severe acute or chronic pain have smaller hippocampal volumes and lower levels of hippocampal N-acetylaspartate/creatine, a marker of neuronal integrity. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2001-12-01
The presence of a single APOE-epsilon4 allele is associated with an increased rate of hippocampal volume loss in healthy women in their sixth decade of life that is not related to any detectable memory changes. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2001-10-01
The risk of PSD is high, and increased in patients with prestroke cognitive decline, with about one-third of patients meeting the criteria for AD and two-thirds meeting the criteria for VaD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-07-26
With recent data demonstrating that lecanemab treatment can slow cognitive and functional decline in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD), it is widely anticipated that this drug and potentially other monoclonal antibody infusions targeting β-amyloid protein will imminently be realistic options for some patients with AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2004-12-01
Greater social resources, as defined by social networks and social engagement, are associated with reduced cognitive decline in old age. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2001-05-01
Neurologists' use of ICD-9CM codes in a sample of 181 consecutive, new patients evaluated for dementia by 48 of all 49 neurologists from the Rochester, NY, area over a 1-year period was examined. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurology·2003-07-08
Fifteen cases were identified (14 men). All had clear histories of dream enactment behavior, and 10 had RBD confirmed by polysomnography. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-01-01
Neuronal oxidative stress occurs early in the progression of Alzheimer disease (AD), significantly before the development of the pathologic hallmarks, neurofibrillary tangles, and senile plaques. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-07-31
This observational study included 290 cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants with a family history (FH) of clinically diagnosed sporadic AD (age 49-73 years) from the Alzheimer's and Families (ALFA) study. [ 18 F]flutemetamol-PET standardized uptake value ratios, CSF β-amyloid 42/40 ratio, and phosphorylated tau were used as AD biomarkers. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-12-05
Growing evidence suggests that the APOE ε4 allele, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), influences the clinical-pathologic features of Parkinson disease (PD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-07-25
Clinical criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease include insidious onset and progressive impairment of memory and other cognitive functions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neurology·1998-01-01
Cerebellar disorders associated with HIV infection are typically the result of discrete cerebellar lesions resulting from opportunistic infections such as toxoplasmosis and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy or primary CNS lymphoma. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-04-25
14,292 patients were diagnosed with dementia over 2018–2021 (age 76.5+/−10.3 years; 53.1% female), with 96.3% linked to a census-tract-level ADI. 5 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.