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 251–275 of 451 studies published 2004(page 11 of 19)· 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.
Plasma and serum biochemical markers proposed for Alzheimer disease (AD) are based on pathophysiologic processes such as amyloid plaque formation [amyloid beta-protein (A beta), A beta autoantibodies, platelet amyloid precursor protein (APP) isoforms], inflammation (cytokines), oxidative stress (vitamin E, isoprostanes), lipid metabolism (apolipoprotein E, 24S-hydroxycholesterol), and vascular disease [homocysteine, lipoprotein (a)]. 2 key findings →
In this study we investigated impaired awareness of cognitive deficits in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
A rehabilitation program of 6 weeks, including both motor and cognitive training, was applied to 20 patients affected by Parkinson's disease (PD) in the early stages, presenting with mild cognitive deficits, but no dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2004-07-01
In patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) disturbances of mental state constitute some of the most difficult treatment challenges of advanced disease, often limiting effective treatment of motor symptoms and leading to increased disability and poor quality of life. 1 key finding →
Proactive interventions from a palliative care consultant within this subset of patients improved end-of-life care and decreased use of superfluous resources. 2 key findings →
Scores from domains were summed and classified into 3 categories: 4 or less, minimal; 5-12, moderate; and more than 12, significant content. 4 key findings →
Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impairments in reciprocal social interaction, deficits in verbal and nonverbal communication, and a restricted repertoire of activities or interests. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2004-07-01
Medication-free nonelderly depressed outpatients without alcohol dependence or adverse experiences in childhood had normal hippocampal volume. 4 key findings →
Older depressed subjects have persisting cognitive impairments associated with hippocampal volume reduction, but the results do not support cortisol-mediated hippocampal neurotoxicity as the major etiological mechanism. 4 key findings →
Participants with late-onset depression had bilateral hippocampal atrophy compared with those with early-onset depression and controls. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Stroke·2004-01-15
In stroke- and dementia-free individuals, higher 10-year risk for stroke is associated with performance decrements in multiple cognitive domains. 2 key findings →
In an effort to examine changes that precede synapse loss, we have measured amyloid-beta and a series of damage markers in the synaptic compartment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases. 2 key findings →
The change in threshold did not seem to correlate with dysfunction of inhibitory intracortical cholinergic and GABAergic circuits, nor with the central cholinergic activity. 5 key findings →
✓ 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 →
The endocannabinoids are a family of bioactive lipids that activate CB1 cannabinoid receptors in the brain and exert intense emotional and cognitive effects. 3 key findings →
The pathogenesis of incipient Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been resistant to analysis because of the complexity of AD and the overlap of its early-stage markers with normal aging. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·BMJ·2004-08-10
Participants who drank no alcohol at midlife and those who drank alcohol frequently were both twice as likely to have mild cognitive impairment in old age as those participants who drank alcohol infrequently. 5 key findings →
We compared lesions in elderly transgenic (tg) mice carrying the Swedish double mutation KM670/671NL with lesions in Alzheimer disease (AD) by histochemical and immunohistochemical techniques. 4 key findings →
The Health Utilities Index (HUI) is a recently developed system for measuring the overall health status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) of individuals, clinical groups, and general populations. 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.