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 651–675 of 1,098 studies published 2017(page 27 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 findings identify resident subgroups at especially high risk of poor oral health who can be targeted in quality improvement efforts related to oral hygiene; they also indicate need to improve the accuracy of how MDS items are completed. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neuro-oncology·2017-03-01
Exercise training is an effective means for promoting white matter and hippocampal recovery and improving reaction time in children treated with cranial radiation for brain tumors. 3 key findings →
Plasma levels of Aβ oligomers could be assessed using MDS, which might be a simple, noninvasive, and accessible assay for evaluating brain amyloid deposition related to AD pathology. 3 key findings →
Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·JCI insight·2017-08-17
The geometric distribution and increased burden of retinal amyloid pathology in AD, together with the feasibility to noninvasively detect discrete retinal amyloid deposits in living patients, may lead to a practical approach for large-scale AD diagnosis and monitoring. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the deposition of amyloid-β as extracellular plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau as intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature communications·2017-10-17
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is characterized by acute neurological dysfunction and associated with the development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Eye (London, England)·2017-03-10
AimTo evaluate visual dysfunction and its correlation with structural changes in the retina in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).MethodsPatients with AD (n=24) and controls (n=24) underwent evaluation of visual acuity (VA), color vision (using the Farnsworth and L'Anthony desaturated (D) 15 color tests), and contrast sensitivity vision (CSV; using the Pelli-Robson chart and CSV-1000E test) to measure visual dysfunction. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2017-09-17
The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study provides such information but does not routinely aggregate results that are of interest to clinicians specialising in neurological conditions. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature communications·2017-04-03
Alterations of the dopaminergic (DAergic) system are frequently reported in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and are commonly linked to cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →
The concomitant decline in stroke and dementia incidence rates may depict how successful stroke prevention has targeted shared risk factors of both conditions, especially at advanced ages where such risk factors are highly prevalent. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·PloS one·2017-07-24
In the MCI group, age (B = -0.37, p<0.001) and current daily use of computer-based devices (B = 5.85, p<0.001) were associated with the number of correct cancellations of the e-CT. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Human brain mapping·2017-06-20
Cognitive reserve (CR) explains interindividual differences in the ability to maintain cognitive function in the presence of neuropathology. 2 key findings →
Copathology was significantly associated with survival in brains with CJD (4.2±1.2 vs 9.2±1.9; P=0.019) and in brains with MM1/MV1 CJD (2.1±1.0 vs 6.7±2.8; P=0.012). 5 key findings →
Experimental data suggest that the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamic is involved in the clearance of beta-amyloid, a key event in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2017-04-04
Hyperphosphorylated tau protein deposits and, inflammatory processes are characteristic components of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. 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 27,780 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.