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 601–625 of 1,212 studies published 2019(page 25 of 49)· 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.
Lower Aß-42 levels were associated with a reported decline in memory and language abilities, and with the following SCD-plus features: onset of subjective decline within 5 years, confirmation of cognitive decline by an informant, and decline-related worries. 4 key findings →
In Alzheimer's disease, tau pathology spreads hierarchically from the inferior temporal lobe throughout the cortex, ensuing cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Clinical chemistry·2019-10-18
The assay had a reportable range of 100 to 25000 pg/mL, a limit of quantification of 100 pg/mL, recoveries between 93% and 111%, and intraassay and interassay CV <15% for both peptides. 4 key findings →
We found brain volume reduction in the bilateral temporal, amygdala, parahippocampal and lower parietal lobe and left cingulate and precuneus regions (family-wise error, p < 0.05). 4 key findings →
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β (Aβ)42 and tau are biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, the effects of other neurodegenerative processes on these biomarkers remain unclear. 2 key findings →
This article describes the protocol for the Systematic Multi-domain Alzheimer's Risk Reduction Trial (SMARRT), a single-blind randomized pilot trial to test a personalized, pragmatic, multi-domain Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk reduction intervention in a US integrated healthcare delivery system. 1 key finding →
Moderate/severe hearing loss was significantly associated with lower composite z score in males (β = -28.67, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = -57.13 to -0.20) but not in females (β = -8.82, 95% CI = -36.61 to 18.96). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·NeuroImage Clinical·2019-01-01
According to the network model of neurodegeneration, the spread of pathogenic proteins occurs selectively along connected brain regions. 2 key findings →
Although clinical routine focuses on dichotomous and visual interpretation of amyloid PET, regional image assessment in research settings may yield additional opportunities. 5 key findings →
The progressive decrement of neuropsychological performance is associated with HVL long before the emergence of clinically overt symptoms. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Stroke·2019-10-10
This study provides evidence to support that high Lp(a) concentrations was causally associated with an increased risk of large artery stroke but a decreased risk of small vessel stroke and Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and it is characterized by the deposition of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the brain. 2 key findings →
Parkinson's disease (PD) and frontotemporal dementia/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (FTD/ALS) are insidious and incurable neurodegenerative diseases that represent a significant burden to affected individuals, caregivers, and an ageing population. 1 key finding →
Electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings generate an electrical map of the human brain that are useful for clinical inspection of patients and in biomedical smart Internet-of-Things (IoT) and Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) applications. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·BMC medical ethics·2019-12-19
Our findings indicate a general agreement among professional stakeholders on the ethical promises and challenges raised by the use of IATs among older and disabled users. 4 key findings →
Providing peer-support groups using telehealth may have the potential to develop self-sustaining peer networks for isolated caregivers of people with dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Revue neurologique·2019-09-11
The mechanisms of action of the dietary components of the Mediterranean diet are reviewed in prevention of cardiovascular disease, stroke, age-associated cognitive decline and Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2019-07-30
Current brain spheroids or organoids derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) still lack a microglia component, the resident immune cells in the brain. 4 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.