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 351–375 of 808 studies published 2013(page 15 of 33)· 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.
Lewy body (LB) disorders, including Parkinson disease (PD), Parkinson disease dementia (PDD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), are the second most common type of neurodegenerative dementia. 2 key findings →
Several studies have shown that cognitive intervention may be beneficial for people with Alzheimer disease (AD), but literature reviews conducted so far, have yielded mixed and inconclusive results. 3 key findings →
Tensions exist between abstract ethical principles regarding decision-making "standards" and their translation into research decisions. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2013-04-01
White matter hyperintensities contribute to the presentation of AD and, in the context of significant amyloid deposition, may provide a second hit necessary for the clinical manifestation of the disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-10-09
Patients with autopsy-confirmed low-, intermediate-, and high-likelihood DLB, according to the probability statement recommended by the third report of the DLB Consortium, and antemortem MRI, were identified (n = 75). 3 key findings →
Several recent breakthroughs have provided notable insights into the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), with some even shifting our thinking about this neurodegenerative disease and raising the question as to whether this disorder is a proteinopathy, a ribonucleopathy or both. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Nature protocols·2013-09-19
An increasingly popular method of assessing cognitive functions in rodents is the automated touchscreen platform, on which a number of different cognitive tests can be run in a manner very similar to touchscreen methods currently used to test human subjects. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2013-11-28
This study evaluates the individual, as well as relative and joint value of indices obtained from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) patterns of brain atrophy (quantified by the SPARE-AD index), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, APOE genotype, and cognitive performance (ADAS-Cog) in progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) within a variable follow-up period up to 6 years, using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-1 (ADNI-1). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2013-07-17
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) homozygous mutations cause Nasu-Hakola disease, an early-onset recessive form of dementia preceded by bone cysts and fractures. 2 key findings →
Delayed neuronal loss and brain atrophy after cerebral ischemia contribute to stroke and dementia pathology, but the mechanisms are poorly understood. 4 key findings →
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a multifactorial 'healthy brain ageing cognitive training program' for Parkinson's disease. 3 key findings →
Cerebrospinal fluid and positron emission tomography biomarkers accurately predict an underlying Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology; however, they represent either invasive or expensive diagnostic tools. 1 key finding →
Studies supporting the notion that physical activity and exercise can help alleviate the negative impact of age on the body and the mind abound. 2 key findings →
Four of the 17 patients (23.5%) had amyloid-β pathology based on the overall pathology read and also showed increased [(18)F]flutemetamol uptake. [(18)F]Flutemetamol standardized uptake values from the biopsy site were significantly associated with biopsy specimen amyloid-β levels (Pearson's r = 0.67; p = 0.006). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2013-03-18
Participants in the hypertension group with at least 1 ε4 allele showed significantly greater amyloid burden than those with only 1 risk factor or no risk factors. 4 key findings →
An overview of miRNAs altered in Alzheimer's disease (AD) was established by profiling the hippocampus of a cohort of 41 late-onset AD (LOAD) patients and 23 controls, showing deregulation of 35 miRNAs. 1 key finding →
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.