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 26–50 of 345 studies published 2002(page 2 of 14)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2002-10-15
To characterize antibodies produced in humans in response to Abeta42 vaccination, we carried out immunohistochemical examinations of the brains of both transgenic mice and human patients with beta-amyloid pathology. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA·2002-07-01
Persistence with statin therapy in older patients declines substantially over time, with the greatest drop occurring in the first 6 months of treatment. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neuron·2002-01-01
The study presents a technique for automatically assigning a neuroanatomical label to each voxel in an MRI volume using probabilistic information from a manually labeled training set. 3 key findings →
The 2-year rate of infection was 1.20 episodes per 100 resident days, and the hospitalization rate for infection was 0.17 admissions per 100 resident days. 4 key findings →
Reduced exposure to environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk, tumour-suppressor genes on chromosome 21, or a slower rate of replication or higher likelihood of apoptosis in Down's syndrome cells, could be possible reasons for paucity of cancer in people with Down's syndrome. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2002-03-01
Silent brain infarcts and white matter lesions are frequently seen on magnetic resonance imaging in healthy elderly people and both are associated with an increased risk of stroke and dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-08-01
In this longitudinal study of 77 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the authors analyzed whether levels of tau protein phosphorylated at threonine 231 (p-tau(231)) in CSF correlate with progression of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-10-01
The lack of effective predictors of the rate of dementia progression extends to the very earliest stages of the disease, including what is often called MCI. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-06-01
Starting in 1991, participants were assessed with the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) and diagnosed with dementia (including subtype) based on published criteria. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2002-02-01
Lipid-lowering agent use was associated with a lower risk of dementia, and specifically of Alzheimer disease, in those younger than 80 years. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2002-09-01
A new diagnostic indicator of FDG PET scan abnormality, based on age-adjusted t statistics and an automated voxel-based procedure, is presented and validated in a large data set comprising 110 normal controls and 395 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) that were studied in eight participating centers. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-10-01
Patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with no known diagnosis of ALS or family history of ALS were clinically and electrophysiologically assessed for the presence of ALS. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2002-12-01
The finding that perceived social support is strongly related to well-being but unrelated to burden reinforces the conceptual distinctiveness of the latter two concepts. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2002-08-01
Phosphorylation of tau protein at threonine 231 (using full-length tau, 441 amino acids, for the numbering scheme) (p-tau(231)) occurs specifically in postmortem brain tissue of patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and can be sensitively detected in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2002-04-01
Models combining multiple risk factors should refine the prediction of questionable dementia and persistent cognitive impairment, harbingers of dementia. 4 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.