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 451–475 of 909 studies published 2016(page 19 of 37)· 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 47 out of 100.·Neuropharmacology·2016-03-16
The kynurenine pathway (KP) of tryptophan metabolism has emerged in recent years as a key regulator of the production of both neuroprotective (e.g. kynurenic and picolinic acid, and the essential cofactor NAD+) and neurotoxic metabolites (e.g. quinolinic acid, 3-hydroxykynurenine). 1 key finding →
We report kinetic modeling results of dynamic acquisition data from 0 to 100 min after injection with the tau PET tracer 18 F-AV-1451 in 19 subjects. 2 key findings →
It has been proved that the proposed system is suitable to support clinicians to reliably drive and evaluate clinical interventions toward quality of life improvement of people with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Proteolysis of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) liberates various fragments including the proposed initiator of Alzheimer disease-associated dysfunctions, amyloid-β. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2016-02-18
Studies have assessed individual components of a western diet, but no study has assessed the long-term, cumulative effects of a western diet on aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Sleep·2016-06-01
Study objectives To evaluate the role of orexin-A with respect to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers, and explore its relationship to cognition and sleep characteristics in a group of cognitively normal elderly individuals. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurotoxicology·2016-07-19
The world's population is steadily ageing and as a result, health conditions related to ageing, such as dementia, have become a major public health concern. 4 key findings →
Chromosome 21, triplicated in Down Syndrome, contains several genes that are thought to play a critical role in the development of AD neuropathology. 4 key findings →
Cerebrospinal fluid synaptotagmin-1 is a promising biomarker to monitor synaptic dysfunction and degeneration in Alzheimer's disease that may be useful for clinical diagnosis, to monitor effect on synaptic integrity by novel drug candidates, and to explore pathophysiology directly in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Data synthesis Eszopiclone, zolpidem, and suvorexant improved short-term global and sleep outcomes compared with placebo, although absolute effect sizes were small (low- to moderate-strength evidence). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC palliative care·2016-03-10
Contextual factors regarding the care home environment may be obdurate and tend to negatively impact on the quality of end of life dementia care. 1 key finding →
There is considerable ambiguity about initiating ACP in dementia at diagnosis among physicians practicing in two different European health care systems and caring for different patient populations. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Aging & mental health·2016-09-13
Fulfilling PwD's need for occupation and social interaction is consistent with a person-centred dementia care focus and should have priority in dementia care. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2016-04-15
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are overlapping, fatal neurodegenerative disorders in which the molecular and pathogenic basis remains poorly understood. 5 key findings →
Recovery rates are low, even among those with higher levels of pre-fracture functional status, and are worse for patients who are older, cognitively impaired, and who have multiple comorbidities. 3 key findings →
We confirm that variation in/near APOE/TOMM40 (P = 6 × 10(-14)) alters PCA risk, but with smaller effect than for typical AD (PCA: odds ratio [OR] = 2.03, typical AD: OR = 2.83, P = .0007). 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.