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 788 studies published 2014(page 20 of 32)· 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.
The study findings demonstrate high user satisfaction with telehealth in a rural memory clinic and the sound psychometric properties of the TeSS in this population. 2 key findings →
Down syndrome (DS) is the most common genetic cause of intellectual disability, due to partial or complete triplication of chromosome 21. 3 key findings →
The construct of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been proposed to identify patients at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the pre-clinical stage. 3 key findings →
Genetic analysis of familial forms of Alzheimer's disease (AD) causally links the proteolytic processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2014-09-06
In this study, we have assessed the expression and splicing status of genes involved in the pathogenesis or affecting the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the postmortem inferior temporal cortex samples obtained from 60 subjects with varying degree of AD-related neurofibrillary pathology. 4 key findings →
Impairment in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) heralds the transition from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia and is a major source of burden for both the patient and caregiver. 4 key findings →
We investigated possible abnormalities in the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macula lutea of patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and tested for any correlation with the severity of dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2014-08-30
A significant portion of our risk for dementia in old age is associated with lifestyle factors (diet, exercise, and cardiovascular health) that are modifiable, at least in principle. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2014-10-05
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a transitional stage between normal aging and dementia and people with MCI are at high risk of progression to dementia. 4 key findings →
α-Synuclein is the major component of filamentous inclusions that constitute the defining characteristic of Parkinson's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies and multiple system atrophy, so-called α-synucleinopathies. 4 key findings →
Next to α-synuclein deposition, microglial activation is a prominent pathological feature in the substantia nigra (SN) of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·BMC Psychiatry·2014-05-09
Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) account for the largest burden of early mortality and are predicted to cost the global community more than US $30 trillion over the next 20 years. 1 key finding →
The epidemic and experimental studies have confirmed that the obesity can lead to neuroinflammation, neurodegenerative diseases and adversely affect cognition. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2014-07-29
The aim of this paper was to investigate the association of three well-recognised dietary patterns with cognitive change over a 3-year period. 3 key findings →
The decision-support intervention piloted in this study was feasible and relevant for surrogate decision-makers of persons with advanced dementia in NHs, and it improved quality of communication between SDM and NH providers. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Brain stimulation·2014-12-03
We present the first in-human evidence that, in addition to modulating neural circuit activity, DBS may influence the natural course of brain atrophy in a neurodegenerative disease. 3 key findings →
Potential mechanisms by which HDAC6 inhibitors might benefit the rTg4510 mouse include stabilization of microtubules secondary to increased tubulin acetylation, increased degradation of tau secondary to increased acetylation of HSP90 or both. 3 key findings →
We used resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF) of intrinsic brain activity in 23 patients with moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 27 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. 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.