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 909 studies published 2016(page 16 of 37)· 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.
In 2012, the national prevalence of antipsychotic drug use was 20.7% for elderly patients with dementia, with a national incidence of 3.9%. 4 key findings →
Patients with all biomarkers positive for AD (N = 145) had the highest hazard for progression to dementia due to AD, whilst patients with no positive biomarkers (N = 111) had the lowest. 3 key findings →
ApoE on high-density lipoproteins is primarily responsible for lipid transport and cholesterol homeostasis in the central nervous system (CNS). 1 key finding →
Genome-wide association studies have identified rare variants of the gene that encodes triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) - an immune receptor that is found in brain microglia - as risk factors for non-familial Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2016-02-03
This study provides evidence for heterogeneous pathologic substrates and possibly different pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying MRI-observed cortical microbleeds in the context of advanced CAA and Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Hypertensive pregnancy disorders are associated with worse performance on tests of processing speed and smaller brain volumes decades later. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2016-05-31
Most patients received physical assessments, including mobility (89 %), continence (84 %) and pressure sore risk (87 %); however assessment of pain (75 %), and particularly functioning (36 %) was poor. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Clinical therapeutics·2016-10-15
Although non-BzRAs have improved safety profiles compared with benzodiazepines, their side effects include dementia, serious injury, and fractures, which should limit their use. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-11-01
Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology starts long before clinical symptoms manifest, and there is no therapy to treat, delay, or prevent the disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·PloS one·2016-03-07
The aggregation of Aβ42-peptides and the formation of drusen in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are due in part to the inability of homeostatic phagocytic mechanisms to clear self-aggregating Aβ42-peptides from the extracellular space. 4 key findings →
Microglia-mediated proteolysis of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM-2) produces soluble TREM-2 (sTREM-2) that can be measured in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. 4 key findings →
We investigated trends in the incidence of parkinsonism and Parkinson disease (PD) by comparing data from the first 2 subcohorts of the Rotterdam Study, a prospective, population-based cohort study (first subcohort: baseline 1990 with 10 years of follow-up; second subcohort, baseline 2000 with 10 years of follow-up). 4 key findings →
Intracellular inclusions consisting of TAR DNA binding protein-43 (TDP-43 pathology) are present in up to 57% of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases and follow a distinct topographical pattern of progression described in the TDP-43 in AD staging scheme. 4 key findings →
Increasing evidence from epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies indicate that age-related cerebromicrovascular dysfunction and microcirculatory damage play critical roles in the pathogenesis of many types of dementia in the elderly, including Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder is characterized by nocturnal violence, increased muscle tone during rapid eye movement sleep and the lack of any other neurological disease. 2 key findings →
While computerised tomography (CT) may have been the first imaging tool to study human brain, it has not yet been implemented into clinical decision making process for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 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.