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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 226–250 of 974 studies published 2015(page 10 of 39)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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.
Atraumatic convexal subarachnoid hemorrhage (cSAH) in elderly patients is a rare entity that has been associated with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and intracerebral hematomas (ICH). 5 key findings →
Our findings raise concerns about potential effects of air pollution from traffic and other sources on the risk of PD, particularly in populations with high or increasing exposures. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·JAMA·2015-07-01
Incident stroke was associated with an acute decline in cognitive function and also accelerated and persistent cognitive decline over 6 years. 5 key findings →
The mean age of 35,570 new users of cholinesterase inhibitors (30,174 users of donepezil, 1,176 users of galantamine, 4,220 users of rivastigmine) was 82; 75% were women, and 82% were white. 5 key findings →
Growing evidence indicates that apolipoprotein E (ApoE) is one of the most important candidate genes for influencing the development of hemodialysis (HD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-07-28
Targeted sequencing of confirmed GWAS loci revealed an excess burden of deleterious coding mutations in LOAD, with the greatest burden observed in ABCA7 and BIN1. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2015-07-23
Interventions that have even quite modest effects at the individual level could drastically reduce the future burden of dementia associated with Alzheimer's disease at the population level. 1 key finding →
A prolonged preclinical phase of more than two decades before the onset of dementia suggested that initial brain changes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the symptoms of advanced AD may represent a unique continuum. 2 key findings →
This paper reports findings from a systematic review of the literature on the general public's knowledge and understanding of dementia/Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
We have established a valuable homogeneous single-center cohort which, by identifying groups of variables associated with high risk of MCI or dementia conversion, should help to clarify the early physiopathological mechanisms of AD and should provide avenues for prompt diagnosis and AD prevention. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Nature·2015-08-26
The GGGGCC (G4C2) repeat expansion in a noncoding region of C9orf72 is the most common cause of sporadic and familial forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →
Variants in triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) confer high risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-12-14
A reliable method of detecting Alzheimer disease (AD) in its prodromal state is needed for patient stratification in clinical trials or for personalizing existing or potential upcoming therapies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-09-25
Our data suggest that [F-18]-AV-1451 holds promise as a surrogate marker for the detection of brain tau pathology in the form of tangles and paired helical filament-tau-containing neurites in Alzheimer brains but also point to its relatively lower affinity for lesions primarily made of straight tau filaments in non-Alzheimer tauopathy cases and to the existence of some [F-18]-AV-1451 off-target binding. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-02-01
Covert cerebrovascular disease and its consequences on cognitive and gait performance and brain atrophy are manifest in some clinically asymptomatic persons as early as the 5th decade of life. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nature·2015-08-26
The hexanucleotide repeat expansion (HRE) GGGGCC (G4C2) in C9orf72 is the most common cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →
Cytoplasmic aggregation of TDP-43, accompanied by its nuclear clearance, is a key common pathological hallmark of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD). 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.