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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 601–625 of 1,098 studies published 2017(page 25 of 44)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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 PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial was a double-blind trial that randomized 8442 patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to receive twice daily dosing of either 200 mg of LCZ696 or 10 mg of enalapril in addition to standard medical therapy for HF. 1 key finding →
Herbal therapy demonstrated a significant improvement in cognition and memory, which were similar to the donepezil in patients with aMCI. 3 key findings →
The relationship between obesity and cognitive impairment is important given the globally ageing population in whom cognitive decline and neurodegenerative disorders will carry grave individual, societal and financial burdens. 4 key findings →
This technique could be applied to questions in social gerontology related to how social media outlets reflect and shape attitudes bearing on other developmental outcomes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2017-05-30
This study assesses whether C-terminal fragments (CTF) of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) are present in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and their potential as biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Molecular brain·2017-06-07
Although post-ischemic inflammation induced by the innate immune response is considered an essential step in the progression of cerebral ischemia injury, the role of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) in the pathogenesis of ischemic stroke remains to be elucidated. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2017-10-14
Recent genetic studies have provided overwhelming evidence of the involvement of microglia-related molecular networks in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2017-09-11
TREM2 plays a critical role in the alleviation of Alzheimer's disease by promoting Aβ phagocytosis by microglia, but the detailed molecular mechanism underlying TREM2-induced direct phagocytic activity of Aβ remains to be revealed. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2017-06-27
We examined the effect of chronic high fat diet (HFD) on amyloid deposition and cognition of 12-months old APP23 mice, and correlated the phenotype to brain transcriptome and lipidome. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2017-01-20
Nasu-hakola disease (NHD) is a rare disease characterized by bone cysts and fractures, frontal lobe syndrome, and progressive presenile dementia. 4 key findings →
Astrocytes have essential roles in the central nervous system and are also implicated in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disease. 4 key findings →
Perivascular macrophages (PVM) are a distinct population of resident brain macrophages characterized by a close association with the cerebral vasculature. 4 key findings →
The 88 patients with AD included 15 with microbleeds only in cortical/subcortical regions (cortical microbleeds) that could be CAA-related, 16 with microbleeds only in deep locations (deep microbleeds), 3 with microbleeds in both cortical and deep locations (mixed microbleeds), and 54 without microbleeds. 4 key findings →
Lithium therapy is generally accepted as a first-line treatment for bipolar disorder, and it is also identified as one of the best augmenting options for treatment-resistant depression. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.