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 609 studies published 2009(page 2 of 25)· 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 69 out of 100.·JAMA·2009-08-01
Higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with slower MMSE cognitive decline but not consistently with other cognitive tests. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·PloS one·2009-05-13
The management of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, autonomic symptoms and depression, and the encouragement of physical activity may provide the core elements for the most fruitful strategy to reduce falls in people with dementia. 2 key findings →
When zero inflation was taken into account, between-site differences in disability scores were largely attributable to compositional differences in health and sociodemographic characteristics. 5 key findings →
We have carried out a systematic review of the case files of 242 donors with pathologically verified Parkinson's disease at the Queen Square Brain Bank for Neurological Disorders in an attempt to corroborate the data-driven subtype classification proposed by Lewis and colleagues (Heterogeneity of Parkinson's disease in the early clinical stages using a data driven approach. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-12-30
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative has successfully recruited cohorts of cognitively normal subjects, subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and subjects with Alzheimer disease with anticipated baseline characteristics. 1 key finding →
The efficacy, safety and disease-modification of tramiprosate (homotaurine)were investigated in a recently completed large-scale Phase III clinical study in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), the Alphase study. 4 key findings →
Ibuprofen, if used for relatively short periods of time and although well tolerated thanks to gastroprotection, does not seem to be effective in tertiary prevention of mild-moderate AD. 4 key findings →
The objective of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of donepezil in young adults with Down syndrome (DS) but no evidence of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-11-01
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, but not the Mini-Mental State Examination, has adequate psychometric properties as a screening instrument for the detection of mild cognitive impairment or dementia in Parkinson disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2009-06-10
The CSF AD profile was more common in patients with SCI (31 of 60 [52%]), naMCI (25 of 37 [68%]), and aMCI (56 of 71 [79%]) than in healthy controls (28 of 89 [31%]). 3 key findings →
This large cohort of 85 year olds showed good levels of both self rated health and functional ability despite significant levels of disease and impairment. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-06-01
Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for age at baseline, gender, apolipoprotein genotype, and NYU paragraph delayed recall score, showed that higher BDI scores were associated with progression to AD (p = 0.03). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·Annals of Neurology·2009-03-19
CSF A beta(1-42) was the most sensitive biomarker for AD in the autopsy cohort of CSF samples: receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.913 and sensitivity for AD detection of 96.4%. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100.·Neurology·2009-01-01
This double-blind randomized controlled trial of vitamin therapy demonstrates a strong correlation between serum tHcy and plasma Abeta40 concentrations in subjects with ischemic stroke. 4 key findings →
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a multi-center study assessing neuroimaging in diagnosis and longitudinal monitoring. 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.