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 251–275 of 974 studies published 2015(page 11 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Rejuvenation research·2015-08-20
Advancing age is the focus of recent studies on familial and sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD), suggesting a prolonged pre-clinical phase several decades before the onset of dementia symptoms. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-05-06
The sample included dementia-free participants (mean age 40 ± 9 years; 53% women) of the Framingham Heart Study third-generation cohort with cognitive testing of memory, abstract reasoning, visual perception, attention, and executive function (n = 2,126). 4 key findings →
Most individuals with schizophrenia suffer some cognitive dysfunction: such deficits are predictive of longer-term functioning; and current dopamine-blocking antipsychotics have made little impact on this domain. 1 key finding →
Nurses play a key role in the effective management of pain through the use of pain assessment tools, behavioural observation, and analgesic choice. 2 key findings →
BACE1 is a key protease controlling the formation of amyloid β, a peptide hypothesized to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Pain and agitation were common and frequently persisted in residents with dementia during nursing home stay, but symptom management intensified only at the end of life. 4 key findings →
A large body of evidence suggests that not only cerebral but also systemic oxidative stress (OxS) might be involved in the pathogenesis of late onset Alzheimer’s disease (LOAD) and vascular dementia (VAD), as well as of the prodromal phase of dementia, the so-called mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-07-15
Our findings suggest that inflammation in the CNS increases in normal aging and is intimately related to markers of neurodegeneration in the preclinical stages of AD and SNAP. sAPPβ and β-secretase activity are not useful diagnostic or staging markers in preclinical AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-01-07
The proportion of progressors was 11% (8/41), 34% (14/41), 56% (19/34), and 71% (60/85) in A-N-, A+N-, SNAP, and A+N+, respectively; the proportion of APOE ε4 carriers was 29%, 70%, 31%, and 71%, respectively, with the SNAP group featuring a significantly different proportion than both A+N- and A+N+ groups (p ≤ 0.005). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2015-06-29
Delirium and dementia are two of the most common causes of cognitive impairment in older populations, yet their interrelation remains poorly understood. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·PloS one·2015-10-01
To assess the value of exosomal miRNAs as biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD), the expression of microRNAs was measured in a plasma fraction enriched in exosomes by differential centrifugation, using Illumina deep sequencing. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2015-01-01
Use of selective in-vivo tau imaging will enable improved understanding of tau aggregation in the brain, facilitating research into causes, diagnosis, and treatment of major tauopathies such as Alzheimer's disease, progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and some variants of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2015-03-01
Age-associated changes in brain imaging and fluid biomarkers are characterized and compared in presenilin 1 (PSEN1)E280A mutation carriers and noncarriers from the world's largest known autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (AD) kindred. 4 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.