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 551–575 of 1,102 studies published 2018(page 23 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.
Advances in neuroimaging have enabled greater understanding of the progression of cerebral degenerative processes associated with ageing-related dementias. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Health reports·2018-05-16
On Census Day, 1.4% of the study sample were living in a nursing home, 1.2% in a seniors' residence, 7.1% in a private dwelling with additional family, and 90.3% in a private dwelling. 5 key findings →
A total of 2,098 MAPD patients meeting study inclusion/exclusion criteria and with a PA for alirocumab were identified between March 1, 2016 and February 28, 2017. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2018-10-01
Ten participants with AD (5 male and 5 female; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [6.3] years; 10 [100%] β-amyloid positive) were compared with 11 participants who were cognitively normal (5 male and 6 female; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [8.7] years; 11 [100%] β-amyloid negative). 4 key findings →
The present patients with positive GFAP-immunoglobulin G are highly similar to autoimmune GFAP astrocytopathy, described in a recent report. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Scientific data·2018-03-13
Patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) often have overlap in clinical presentation and brain neuropathology suggesting that these two diseases share common underlying mechanisms. 1 key finding →
This evaluation shows an [ 18 F]MK-6240 distribution in concordance with postmortem studies and that simplified quantitative approaches such as the SUVR offer valid estimates of neurofibrillary tangle load 90 min post injection. [ 18 F]MK-6240 is a promising tau tracer with the potential to be applied in the disease diagnosis and assessment of therapeutic interventions. 2 key findings →
Second, to investigate if regions of high tau burden are associated with functional connectivity networks, we extracted the region with the maximum z-value in each of the generated tau pathology networks and used them as seeds in a subsequent resting-state functional MRI analysis, conducted in a group of healthy adults (n = 26) who were part of the 1000 Functional Connectomes Project. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is increasingly considered a large-scale network disconnection syndrome, associated with progressive aggregation of pathological proteins, cortical atrophy, and functional disconnections between brain regions. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·EJNMMI research·2018-12-05
[ 18 F]flutemetamol data can now be expressed in Centiloid units, enhancing its utility in clinical and research applications for β-amyloid imaging. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2018-12-18
We built and validated a deep learning algorithm predicting the individual diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment who will convert to AD (c-MCI) based on a single cross-sectional brain structural MRI scan. 5 key findings →
In the field of computer-aided Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis, jointly identifying brain diseases and predicting clinical scores using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have attracted increasing attention since these two tasks are highly correlated. 1 key finding →
While post mortem studies have identified the major cell types and functional systems affected in Alzheimer's disease (AD) the initial sites and molecular characteristics of pathology are still unclear. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurologia·2018-06-10
Potential pharmacogenetic biomarkers for AD have been identified; however, it is still necessary to conduct further research into other populations and to identify new biomarkers. 2 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.