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 301–325 of 909 studies published 2016(page 13 of 37)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-02-17
Total burden of comorbid neuropathologic abnormalities, rather than any single lesion type, was the most relevant determinant of cognitive impairment in both cohorts, often despite clinical diagnosis of only AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2016-06-02
To determine if proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS) detect differences in dementia status in adults with Down syndrome (DS), we used (1)H-MRS to measure neuronal and glial metabolites in the posterior cingulate cortex in 22 adults with DS and in 15 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·The EMBO journal·2016-04-21
An intronic expansion of GGGGCC repeats within the C9ORF72 gene is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD). 3 key findings →
We recently revealed that p.H157Y (rs2234255), a rare coding variant of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 gene (TREM2), was associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) susceptibility in Han Chinese. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Trials·2016-08-09
Some degree of cognitive decline after surgery occurs in as many as one quarter of elderly surgical patients, and this decline is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Aging & mental health·2016-11-09
We conclude that eight-week MBI for older adults are feasible, but results on cognitive improvement are inconclusive due a limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and a high risk of bias. 3 key findings →
The present study creates the first-ever multiethnic referent sample that spans community-based and clinic-based populations for implementation of an AD blood screen. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Scientific data·2016-10-11
Previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS), conducted by our group and others, have identified loci that harbor risk variants for neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
In this single-dose study, aducanumab demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and linear PK at doses ≤30 mg/kg (clinicaltrials.govNCT01397539). 2 key findings →
In patients with osteoporosis and no recent fracture, falls, older age, poorer health status, comorbidities, and other potential fall risk factors were predictive of imminent risk for fracture. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2016-07-20
The A(+)N(-) and A(+)N(+) groups had significantly faster cognitive decline than the A(-)N(-) group (0·08 SD per year for AIBL-Preclinical AD Cognitive Composite [PACC]; p Interpretation Brain amyloidosis, a surrogate marker of Alzheimer's disease pathology, is a risk factor for cognitive decline and for progression from preclinical stages to symptomatic stages of the disease, with neurodegeneration acting as a compounding factor. 2 key findings →
Recent findings Anxiety disorders are associated with alterations in fear neurocircuitry such that 'bottom-up' processes in the amygdala which respond to threat are exaggerated, and regulation of these processes by the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and hippocampus is impaired. 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.