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 788 studies published 2014(page 15 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.
A subset of a dementia subgroup with characteristics predominantly associated with DM-related factors may underlie a pathophysiology different from AD, although these patients were clinically diagnosed as having AD. 4 key findings →
Development of molecular imaging agents for fibrillar β-amyloid positron-emission tomography during the past decade has brought molecular imaging of Alzheimer disease pathology into the spotlight. 1 key finding →
A link between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and metabolic disorders has been established, with patients with type 2 diabetes at increased risk of developing AD and vice versa. 2 key findings →
Trouble falling or staying asleep, poor sleep quality, and short or long sleep duration are gaining attention as potential risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2014-10-08
Altered consciousness has been regarded as a core feature of delirium; the fact that consciousness itself should be physiologically disrupted due to acute illness attests to its clinical urgency. 1 key finding →
Cerebral microbleeds (microbleeds) are small, punctuate hypointense lesions seen in T2* Gradient-Recall Echo (GRE) and Susceptibility-Weighted (SWI) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) sequences, corresponding to areas of hemosiderin breakdown products from prior microscopic hemorrhages. 1 key finding →
The incidence of obesity in middle age is increasing markedly, and in parallel the prevalence of metabolic disorders including cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes is also rising. 1 key finding →
This study provides pathological validation that the new criteria assist with separating PPA cases with AD pathology into the new lv-PPA syndrome and found that a number of diagnostic clinical features (disinhibition, food preferences and naming) did not assist in discriminating the different FTD syndromes. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Diabetes·2014-06-15
A growing body of evidence supports an intriguing clinical/epidemiological connection between Alzheimer disease (AD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). 2 key findings →
Among 2985 nondemented individuals, 601 were diagnosed with MCI, resulting in a prevalence of 20.1% for total MCI, 13.2% for amnestic MCI (aMCI), and 7.0% for non-amnestic MCI (naMCI). 2 key findings →
The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a tightly regulated interface in the Central Nervous System (CNS) that regulates the exchange of molecules in and out from the brain thus maintaining the CNS homeostasis. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2014-02-14
Immunotherapeutic approaches are currently in the spotlight for their potential as disease-modifying treatments for neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are the two common neurodegenerative diseases characterized by progressive neuronal dysfunction in the presence of pathological microglial activation. 4 key findings →
The results also suggest that grammatical reasoning and episodic memory should be targeted in developing appropriate outcome measures to assess efficacy of future interventions, and in developing cognitive training programmes to prevent or delay cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2014-09-04
As preclinical Alzheimer's disease becomes a target for therapeutic intervention, the overlap between imaging abnormalities associated with typical ageing and those associated with Alzheimer's disease needs to be recognised. 4 key findings →
We investigated whether a validated computerized cognitive test, the Computerized Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI), could be independently completed by older primary care patients. 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.