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 376–400 of 480 studies published 2005(page 16 of 20)· 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.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between spiritual well-being and caregiver burden in family caregivers of persons with Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2005-10
Change in quality of life was better in facilities that used a specialized worker approach, trained more staff in more domains central to dementia care, and encouraged activity participation. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2005-10
This article describes the prevalence, assessment, and treatment of, as well as characteristics associated with, mobility limitation in 343 residents with dementia in 45 assisted living facilities and nursing homes. 3 key findings →
Many neurodegenerative diseases are caused by intracellular, aggregate-prone proteins, including polyglutamine-expanded huntingtin in Huntington's disease (HD) and mutant tau in fronto-temporal dementia/tauopathy. 2 key findings →
We generated several cell models of tauopathy in order to study the mechanisms of neurodegeneration in diseases involving abnormal changes of tau protein. 5 key findings →
Diverse oxidative pathways, such as direct oxidation of amino acids, glycoxidation, and lipoxidation could contribute to Alzheimer disease pathogenesis. 1 key finding →
Microtubule-associated protein tau is the major component of the neurofibrillary tangles of Alzheimer disease (AD) and is genetically linked to frontotemporal dementias (FTDP-17). 4 key findings →
Discovery of various mutations in the tau gene among frontotemporal dementia and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17) families suggests gain-of-toxic function of wild-type or mutant tau as the mechanism for extensive neuronal loss. 5 key findings →
The characteristic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia in the elderly, include senile plaques, mainly composed of beta-amyloid (Abeta) peptide, neurofibrillary tangles and selective synaptic and neuronal loss in brain regions involved in learning and memory. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Palliative medicine·2005-06-01
According to the NH staff, fairly good quality care was provided, but the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of care need to be addressed more in the last days of the dying NH patient's life. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Nurse education today·2005-05-01
The increasing burden of chronic disease demands that palliative care clinicians address the needs of patients with non-malignant disease. 5 key findings →
This article reviews the state-of-the-art research in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from several perspectives: (1) Sex differences: PTSD is more frequent among women, who tend to have different types of precipitating traumas and higher rates of comorbid panic disorder and agoraphobia than do men. 1 key finding →
Analysis of post-mortem tissue from patients with affective disorders has revealed a decreased number of glial cells in several brain areas. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2005-04-01
Structural deformity of the hippocampus is characteristic of individuals with very mild and mild forms of dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Psychiatry research·2005-08-01
Studies have suggested that teens with alcohol use disorder (AUD) can demonstrate memory deficits, but the underlying neuroanatomical substrates are unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Pediatrics·2005-07-01
Prematurity is associated with mild brain structural differences that persist at 8 years of age, with associated lower scores in neurocognitive assessments. 5 key findings →
The birth of new neurons, or neurogenesis, in the hippocampal formation has been demonstrated throughout the lifetime of multiple species including humans. 3 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.