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 609 studies published 2009(page 14 of 25)· 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.
Numerous studies have demonstrated oxidative damage in the central nervous system in subjects with Alzheimer disease and in animal models of this dementing disorder. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2009-08-01
Astrocyte infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is considered rare, so astrocytes are thought to play a secondary role in HIV neuropathogenesis. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an age-related dementia, characterized by amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, neuroinflammation, and neuronal loss in the brain. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2009-02-01
Based on this cohort, although CJD is the most likely cause of a rapidly progressive neurodegenerative dementia, frontotemporal lobar degeneration with motor neuron degeneration, diffuse Lewy body disease, tauopathies, and Alzheimer disease can also cause a rapidly progressive dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Stroke·2009-03-05
Carotid atherosclerosis markers were associated with MRI indices of brain ischemia and aging and with cognitive impairment in a community-based sample of middle-aged adults. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2009-02-01
Reduction in CSF Abeta(42), likely reflecting Abeta aggregation in the brain, is associated with brain atrophy in the preclinical phase of AD. 3 key findings →
Many screening tools for detecting cognitive decline require in-person assessment, which is often not cost-effective or feasible for those with physical limitations. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC neuroscience·2009-08-21
With decreasing local and global connectivity parameters, the large-scale functional brain network organization in AD deviates from the optimal 'small-world' network structure towards a more 'random' type. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-04-01
These results indicate that the epsilon4-positive APOE genotype not only represents a risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), but also results in higher levels of Abeta plaque deposition in epsilon4-positive patients with AD compared to age-matched epsilon4-negative patients with similar levels of cognitive impairment and brain atrophy. 5 key findings →
The concept of 'cognitive reserve', and a broader theory of 'brain reserve', were originally proposed to help explain epidemiological data indicating that individuals who engaged in higher levels of mental and physical activity via education, occupation and recreation, were at lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2009-06-06
While sarcasm can be conveyed solely through contextual cues such as counterfactual or echoic statements, face-to-face sarcastic speech may be characterized by specific paralinguistic features that alert the listener to interpret the utterance as ironic or critical, even in the absence of contextual information. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Behavioural neurology·2009-01-01
Amyloid imaging represents a major advance in neuroscience, enabling the detection and quantification of pathologic protein aggregations in the brain. 5 key findings →
DNA methylation occurs predominantly at cytosines that precede guanines in dinucleotide CpG sites; it is one of the most important mechanisms for epigenetic DNA regulation during normal development and for aberrant DNA in cancer. 4 key findings →
The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is cleaved to produce the Alzheimer disease-associated peptide Abeta, but the normal functions of uncleaved APP in the brain are unknown. 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.