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 326–350 of 581 studies published 2008(page 14 of 24)· 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.
Cognitive dysfunction and dementia have recently been proven to be common (and underrecognized) complications of diabetes mellitus (DM). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Free radical research·2008-02-01
There is a great interest in the relationship between Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and the progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Retinas of transgenic mice harboring a mutant presenilin (PS1) and a mutant APP gene were processed for TUNEL and immunohistochemistry with antibodies against APP, amyloid-beta, monocyte chemotactic protein (MCP)-1, and F4/80. 4 key findings →
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are key regulatory RNAs known to repress mRNA translation through recognition of specific binding sites located mainly in their 3'-untranslated region (UTR). 4 key findings →
Since the discovery of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) in 1987, extensive research has been conducted analyzing the APP-derived beta-amyloid (Abeta) which is found in massive quantities in senile plaques of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients. 4 key findings →
Transactivation-responsive DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is a component of pathological inclusions in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and several forms of sporadic and familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration. 4 key findings →
Recent findings suggest that hypercholesterolemia may contribute to the onset of Alzheimer's disease-like dementia but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2008-10-05
This study (n=161) related morphometric MR imaging, FDG-PET and APOE genotype to memory scores in normal controls (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
The purpose of this study is to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of caregivers and care recipients by caregiver type (i.e., daughter, son, daughter-in-law, and spouse) and to compare the caregiver burden among each type of caregiver. 1 key finding →
More than 3500 Cochrane Reviews are now available in full, including information on the methods, eligible studies, analyses, results, and conclusions. 2 key findings →
Elucidation of Abeta-lowering agents that inhibit processing of the wild-type (WT) beta-secretase amyloid precursor protein (APP) site, present in most Alzheimer disease (AD) patients, is a logical approach for improving memory deficit in AD. 4 key findings →
The beta-amyloid peptide (Abeta) is the major constituent of the amyloid core of senile plaques found in the brain of patients with Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Human mutation·2008-09-01
A genome-wide screen using 382 STR markers to localize and identify the gene implicated in early-onset dementia (EOD) without bone cysts in a Lebanese family with three affected subjects was conducted. 4 key findings →
Despite evidence that early identification of dementia is of growing policy and practice significance in the U.K., limited work has been done on evaluating screening measures for use in primary care. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·BMC family practice·2008-05-13
The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) has contributed to detecting cognitive impairment, yet few studies have evaluated its accuracy when used by general practitioners (GP) in an actual public-health setting. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2008-06-02
Peripheral benzodiazepine receptor (PBR) in the brain of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients has been discussed in relation to the role of gliosis in AD. 4 key findings →
Based on these preliminary findings, consensus criteria for prescribing in advanced dementia are needed to decrease polypharmacy and reduce the use of medications that are of minimal benefit or high risk. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Brain research·2008-06-19
In this study event related coherence of patients with Alzheimer type of dementia (AD) was analyzed by using a visual oddball paradigm as stimuli. 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 27,380 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.