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 788 studies published 2014(page 11 of 32)· 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.
Using a targeted proteomics approach, we confirmed previous findings for a subset of markers, defined longitudinal performance of our panel of markers, and established a flexible proteomics method for robust multiplexed analyses. 5 key findings →
The lack of readily available biomarkers is a significant hindrance toward progressing to effective therapeutic and preventative strategies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
This is the first human study to demonstrate that insulin resistance may contribute to amyloid deposition in brain regions affected by AD. 2 key findings →
With data collected over 20 years, this study demonstrated greater likelihood of cognitive impairment in individuals with repeated high or increasing IL-6. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Medical care·2014-03-01
Claims data studies that include indicators of potentially diminished patient functional status better capture heterogeneity of patients with multiple chronic conditions. 1 key finding →
Compared to participants with no APOE-E4 alleles, participants with 1 allele had better thresholds at 4.0 kHz (β = -2.72 dB, P = .013) and 8.0 kHz (β = -3.05 kHz, P = .006), and participants with 2 alleles had better hearing thresholds at 1.0 kHz (β = -8.56 dB, P = .021). 2 key findings →
The triggering receptor expressed on myeloid 2 (TREM2) is an immune phagocytic receptor expressed on brain microglia known to trigger phagocytosis and regulate the inflammatory response. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Nature protocols·2014-08-14
This protocol describes a primary neuronal model of formation of α-synuclein (α-syn) aggregates that recapitulate features of the Lewy bodies and Lewy neurites found in Parkinson's disease brains and other synucleinopathies. 5 key findings →
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) have distinct clinical features but a common pathology--cytoplasmic inclusions rich in transactive response element DNA-binding protein of 43 kDa (TDP43). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2014-02-05
Recent studies have reported that a rare nonsynonymous variant rs75932628-T in the TREM2 gene is associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease (PD) in European-descended populations. 2 key findings →
The rigorous methodology of the study will hopefully move forward the scientific evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine in treatment of VaD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·PloS one·2014-05-14
Our objective was to determine whether the consumption of green tea, coffee, or black tea influences the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older people. 3 key findings →
It is recognized that individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) already demonstrate difficulty in aspects of daily functioning, which predicts disease progression. 2 key findings →
The purpose of this retrospective, cross-sectional study was to determine the prevalence of advance care planning (ACP) among older people presenting to an Emergency Department (ED) from the community or a residential aged care facility. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2014-07-21
Accumulating evidence implicates small vessel cerebrovascular disease, visualized as white matter hyperintensities (WMH) on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, in the pathogenesis and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 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.