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 501–525 of 1,102 studies published 2018(page 21 of 45)· 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.
There is accumulating evidence that synaptic loss precedes neuronal loss and correlates best with impaired memory formation in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Oncotarget·2018-10-05
Mid-life obesity is an established risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, whereas late-life obesity has been proposed as a protective state. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2018-11-14
Since the discovery of CSF1R gene mutations in families with hereditary diffuse leukoencephalopathy with spheroids in 2012, more than 70 different mutations have been identified around the world. 4 key findings →
CSF biomarkers and amyloid positron emission tomography reflect different aspects of Alzheimer's disease brain pathology, and therefore, less-than-perfect correspondence is expected. 1 key finding →
These findings provide additional insight into gut microbial involvement in AD and add to the growing understanding of the gut-brain axis. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Nature communications·2018-07-25
Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound in combination with intravenously injected microbubbles has been shown to transiently open the blood-brain barrier, and reduce beta-amyloid and tau pathology in animal models of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2018-06-04
Further investigations are needed to elaborate how the concept of a key contact person could be integrated with existing case management approaches and how the independence and autonomy of people with dementia can be strengthened when formal care needs to be accessed and used. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·PloS one·2018-09-25
Among the hip fracture patients, 88.6% of the cognitively normal (Clinical Dementia Rating-CDR 0; n = 70) and 98.8% with mild cognitive impairment (CDR 0.5; n = 81) fell in the abnormal biomarker categories by the A/T/N classification. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2018-12-06
Familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD) is characterized by a positive family history of dementia and typically occurs at an early age with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2018-04-10
In patients treated up to 36 months, amyloid plaque levels continued to decrease in a dose- and time-dependent manner, with levels in the 10 mg/kg fixed-dose group reaching and remaining below a quantitative cut-point discriminating a positive/negative scan. 1 Reduced amyloid plaque levels were also observed in patients switched from placebo to aducanumab during the LTE. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-06-07
In the initial kindred of ten affected Italian individuals (mean age of disease onset 59·8 years [SD 8·7]), we detected significant linkage of Parkinson's disease to chromosome 14 and nominated LRP10 as the disease-causing gene. 2 key findings →
Among 104 537 individuals, the absolute 10-year risk of Alzheimer disease in 3017 women and men who were carriers of the APOE ɛ44 genotype was, respectively, 7% and 6% at age 60-69 years, 16% and 12% at age 70-79 years, and 24% and 19% at age 80 years and older. 1 key finding →
We report the clinical, neuroimaging, and neuropathologic characteristics of 2 patients who developed early onset dementia after a moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). 3 key findings →
Intronic GGGGCC repeat expansions in C9orf72 are the most common known cause of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which are characterised by degeneration of cortical and motor neurons, respectively. 2 key findings →
There is no disease-modifying treatment currently available for AD, one of the more impacting neurodegenerative diseases affecting more than 47.5 million people worldwide. 1 key finding →
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.