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 401–425 of 1,102 studies published 2018(page 17 of 45)· 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 53 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2018-03-06
Intravitam PET and postmortem studies have revealed a more pronounced cortical atrophy, elevated cortical and limbic Lewy body pathologies, higher Aβ and tau loads in cortex and striatum in DLB compared to PDD, and earlier cognitive defects in DLB. 2 key findings →
Clarifying the relationships between neuropsychiatric symptoms and Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related pathology may open avenues for effective treatments. 3 key findings →
In the following brief report, we examined gender differences in incidence rates of any dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) alone, and non-Alzheimer's dementia alone in 16,926 women and men in the Swedish Twin Registry aged 65+. 2 key findings →
Our review shows that picture description tasks are useful tools for detecting differences in a wide variety of language and communicative measures. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Molecular cell·2018-08-09
In amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal degeneration (FTD), cytoplasmic aggregates of hyperphosphorylated TDP-43 accumulate and colocalize with some stress granule components, but how pathological TDP-43 aggregation is nucleated remains unknown. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-07-17
Alzheimer's disease is a genetically complex disorder; rare variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) gene have been shown to as much as triple an individual's risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
The R47H variant of Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) confers greatly increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), reflective of a central role for myeloid cells in neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, is characterized by the abnormal accumulation of amyloid plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau aggregates, as well as microgliosis. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2018-10-25
TREM2 was suggested to be an important regulator of microglia during neurodegeneration, but previous studies report conflicting results in relation to soluble TREM2 (sTREM2) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) when using clinical criteria to classify Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2018-08-14
Observational studies have shown consistently increased likelihood of dementia or mild cognitive impairment diagnoses in people with higher air pollution exposure history, but evidence has been less consistent for associations with cognitive test performance. 4 key findings →
Predicting the progression of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is important for treatment selection and patient counseling. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2018-04-26
Neurogranin (Ng) is a post-synaptic protein that previously has been shown to be a biomarker for synaptic function when measured in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 5 key findings →
Inpatient PCC reduces 30-day readmissions and inpatient mortality with the greatest impact demonstrated within six days of hospital admission. 2 key findings →
Our study confirms and extends findings from other countries, demonstrating cross-sectional associations between moderate and poor self-rated vision and dementia in England in all participants aged 50 and older and longitudinally over an 11-year period in those aged 50 to 69. 3 key findings →
The associations of particulate matter (PM) pollution with the morbidity of overall and subtypes of mental disorders (MDs), as well as the corresponding morbidity burden, remain understudied, especially in developing countries. 5 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.