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 788 studies published 2014(page 14 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Gerontology·2014-08-13
The fall detection system detected 12 out of 15 real-life falls, having a sensitivity of 80.0%, with a false alarm rate of 0.049 alarms per usage hour with the implemented real-time system. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·BMJ open·2014-12-14
These research priorities identify crucial gaps in the existing evidence to address everyday practicalities in the management of the complexities of PD. 1 key finding →
Of 5406 nursing home residents with advanced dementia, 2911 (53.9%) received at least 1 medication with questionable benefit (range, 44.7% in the Mid-Atlantic census region to 65.0% in the West South Central census region). 3 key findings →
Our objective was to evaluate the CSF phospho-Tau181/total-Tau (p/t-Tau) ratio to distinguish between the two main forms of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD): FTLD with TDP-43 (FTLD-TDP) and FTLD with Tau inclusions (FTLD-Tau). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-01-22
The APOE ε4 allele segregated dose-dependently and selectively with CA1-SRLM thinning and worse episodic memory performance in a pool of older subjects across a cognitive spectrum. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2014-01-28
Individuals with dementia were more likely to be diagnosed with 15 comorbidity complexes, including Parkinson's, stroke, diabetes, atherosclerosis (supposed dementia risk factors) or fluids and electrolyte disorders, insomnia, incontinence, pneumonia, fractures and injuries (supposed sequelae). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Radiology·2014-07-01
Resting-state (RS) functional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging constitutes a novel paradigm that examines spontaneous brain function by using blood oxygen level-dependent contrast in the absence of a task. 1 key finding →
Functional and structural connectivity measures, as assessed by means of functional and diffusion MRI, are emerging as potential intermediate biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD) and other disorders. 2 key findings →
Anxiety symptoms in aMCI predict conversion to AD, over and beyond the effects of depression, memory loss, or atrophy within AD neuroimaging biomarkers. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Diabetes care·2014-03-21
Type 2 diabetic patients develop aberrant functional connectivity of the PCC, which is associated with insulin resistance in selected brain regions. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·PloS one·2014-10-27
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) therapy have an increased risk of developing cognitive impairment and dementia, which are known relevant factors in disease prognosis and therapeutic success, but still lack adequate screening in clinical routine. 4 key findings →
Cognitive impairment is an important hallmark of dementia, but deterioration of cognition also occurs frequently in non-demented elderly individuals. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease acknowledged as progressive multifarious neurodegenerative disorder, is the leading cause of dementia in late adult life. 4 key findings →
Accumulation and aggregation of amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides in the brain trigger the development of progressive neurodegeneration and dementia associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
This paper summarizes pathological changes that affect microglial cells in the human brain during aging and in aging-related neurodegenerative diseases, primarily Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2014-01-17
Measurement using validated tools for resident and family satisfaction and health outcomes showed that culture change interventions or clusters of interventions had few negative impacts, but also seldom resulted in statistically significant improvement. 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.