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 476–500 of 739 studies published 2012(page 20 of 30)· 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.
This study demonstrates permanent cognitive impairment in several domains in both septic and non-septic ICU survivors and unspecific brain dysfunction. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is associated with the accumulation in the brain of extracellular neuritic plaques composed mainly of β-amyloid (Aβ) and of intracellular neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyperphosphorylated forms of the microtubule-associated protein tau. 5 key findings →
The human brain contains about 100 billion neurons forming an intricate network of innumerable connections, which continuously adapt and rewire themselves following inputs from external and internal environments as well as the physiological synaptic, dendritic and axonal sculpture during brain maturation and throughout the life span. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2012-11-13
Aβ is the main component of amyloid deposits in Alzheimer disease (AD) and its aggregation into oligomers, protofibrils and fibrils is considered a seminal event in the pathogenesis of AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neuropsychologia·2012-01-13
Third, we benchmarked the results of our virtual reality episodic memory test against a classical memory test and a subjective daily memory complaint scale. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and a progressive neurodegeneration that appears to result from multiple pathogenic mechanisms (including protein misfolding/aggregation, involved in both amyloid β-dependent senile plaques and tau-dependent neurofibrillary tangles), metabolic and mitochondrial dysfunction, excitoxicity, calcium handling impairment, glial cell dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and oxidative stress. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2012-05-01
The Framingham Heart Study, the longest-running prospective epidemiologic study in history, was initiated in 1948 in response to the rising toll of coronary heart disease and hypertension. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Rejuvenation research·2012-04-01
Over the past several years, increasing evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet has a beneficial influence on several age-related diseases, showing protective effect on health and longevity. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Anesthesiology·2012-04-01
This is the first prospective study employing validated measures of delirium to identify an association between preexisting obstructive sleep apnea and postoperative delirium. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Palliative medicine·2012-11-21
This study has identified the professional, organisational and legal factors that influence advance care planning implementation; professional training should target these specific areas. 2 key findings →
Qualitative methods of service evaluation facilitated a broader and deeper understanding of a range of perspectives, which, with other components of rapid participatory appraisal, generated potential solutions to improve care. 1 key finding →
Case conferencing provides opportunities to improve care palliative care outcomes for older people with dementia by engaging family and all relevant internal and external health providers in prospective care planning. 4 key findings →
Our results show that regarding end-of-life preferences for patients, there is moderate agreement between patients and their spouses, but limited evidence for projection of spouses' preferences on patients (i.e. spouse making a prediction based on own wishes). 2 key findings →
Cognitive deficits in older adults attributable to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology are featured early on by hippocampal impairment. 3 key findings →
We investigated structural brain damage in subjects who had suffered severe and diffuse traumatic brain injury (TBI), and examined its relationship with declarative memory impairment. 5 key findings →
Different authors described that transthyretin (TTR) is decreased in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and thus TTR is a potential CSF biomarker in AD. 4 key findings →
CogState and standard neuropsychological task scores were significantly lower for dementia participants than that of the nondementia groups (P < .05), with a single CogState test distinguishing control from MCI participants, but minimal differentiation existing between dementias using the CogState. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) could result from a multifactorial process involving both genetic predisposition and exposure to environmental factors like pesticides. 3 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.