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 531 studies published 2006(page 11 of 22)· 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.
Biometals play an important role in Alzheimer disease, and recent reports have described the development of potential therapeutic agents based on modulation of metal bioavailability. 4 key findings →
We review the clinical, radiologic, and neuropathologic features of the hereditary and sporadic forms of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) associated with vascular deposition of the beta-amyloid peptide. 4 key findings →
Recently, we have shown that green tea polyphenol (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) exerts a beneficial role on reducing brain Abeta levels, resulting in mitigation of cerebral amyloidosis in a mouse model of Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-01-01
Trafficking and proteolytic processing of amyloid precursor protein (APP) have been the focus of numerous investigations in the past two decades, since the identification of Abeta as the principal component of brain senile plaques and the cloning of APP cDNA. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2006-03-29
Neurofibrillary degeneration in the nucleus basalis and a loss of its cortical cholinergic projections are prominent components of the neuropathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The study is a validation study of two psychogeriatric depression rating scales, The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD). 4 key findings →
Encephalitis and dementia associated with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) are characterized by leukocyte infiltration into the CNS, microglia activation, aberrant chemokine expression, blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption, and eventual loss of neurons. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2006-01-01
Progressive aphasia is best seen as a composite of two conditions, on both clinical and pathological levels: progressive nonfluent aphasia and semantic dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2006-06-06
Most patients came from the community (43% home without help and 42% home with help compared with 14% in assisted living and 1% in a nursing home). 5 key findings →
Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) was considered to be an uncommon cause of dementia until improved neuropathological staining methods for ubiquitin were developed in the late 1980's. Subsequent recognition that 10-15% of dementia cases in older people were associated with Lewy body pathology led to the publication in 1996 of Consensus clinical and pathological diagnostic criteria for the disorder. 1 key finding →
Biomarkers are needed to assist in the diagnosis and medical management of various neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and dementia with Lewy body (DLB). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2006-08-10
To clarify the involvement of the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) in Alzheimer's disease (AD), we analyzed brain volume loss by voxel-based morphometry. 4 key findings →
Microglia are associated with neuritic plaques in Alzheimer disease (AD) and serve as a primary component of the innate immune response in the brain. 4 key findings →
A subtle but chronic alteration in metabolic balance between amyloid-beta peptide (Abeta) anabolic and catabolic activities is thought to cause Abeta accumulation, leading to a decade-long pathological cascade of Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
To improve clinical, neuropsychological and behavioural characterisation of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers beta-amyloid((1-42)) protein (Abeta42), protein tau (tau) and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (P-tau181) across diagnostic dementia categories, a prospective study was set up. 3 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.