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 651–675 of 1,212 studies published 2019(page 27 of 49)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·PloS one·2019-07-05
Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are highly prevalent conditions, and prior efforts to develop predictive models have relied on demographic and clinical risk factors using traditional logistical regression methods. 5 key findings →
Language performance deficits can appear early before impairment in episodic memory, visuospatial construction ability, or mental status in individuals at risk for MCI. 5 key findings →
The experimental results demonstrate that the SVM with RBF achieved an encouraging performance with sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and accuracy (ACC) values of 82.65%, 87.17%, and 84.35%, respectively (AUC = 0.861, 95% CI = 0.820-0.902), for the differential diagnosis between VaD and AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurotoxicology·2019-08-01
Metals are involved in different pathophysiological mechanisms associated with neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs), including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD) and multiple sclerosis (MS). 2 key findings →
Several genetic variants of the Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid Cells-2 (TREM2) have been shown to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) supporting a role of microglia and immune cells in the pathobiology of AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurology·2019-05-08
Concentrations of phosphorylated tau181, total tau (t-tau), and β-amyloid in the CSF were measured in 3 groups: 22 former professional athletes with multiple concussions (mean ± SD age 55.9 ± 12.2 years), 5 healthy controls (age 57.4 ± 5.2 years), and 12 participants (age 60.0 ± 6.6 years) diagnosed with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
In this work, we demonstrate how computational multi-scale brain modeling links phenomena of different scales and therefore identifies potential disease mechanisms leading the way to improved diagnostics and treatment. 4 key findings →
To investigate amyloid-β (Aβ) in frontotemporal dementia (FTD), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ38, Aβ40, and Aβ42 in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD; N = 18 genetically and/or pathologically confirmed and N = 8 FTD with concomitant amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) were compared with Alzheimer's disease (AD; pathological or Pittsburgh-compound-B Positron-emission-tomography (PIB-PET) positive; N = 25) and controls (N = 24). 3 key findings →
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers have been extensively investigated in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) with the aim of a better differential diagnosis, but the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying CSF biomarker changes and the relationship between biomarker levels and clinical variables are still a matter of debate. 3 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) often precedes Alzheimer's Dementia (AD), and in a high proportion of individuals affected by MCI, there are already neuropathological processes ongoing that become more evident when patients progress to AD. 3 key findings →
Neocortical tracer retention was highly comparable using both SUVR and distribution volume ratio-1 values obtained from dynamic scans. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2019-01-22
Alzheimer's disease is considered a disconnection syndrome, motivating the use of brain network measures to detect changes in whole-brain resting state functional connectivity (FC). 4 key findings →
The friendship subset of social networks was significantly related to cognition (independent of age, gender, depression, loneliness, and family subset of social network): B = 0.284, P = 0.01. 5 key findings →
Tele-STAR reduced caregiver burden and retained good program and treatment fidelity to STAR-C. We found Tele-STAR reduced caregiver burden and had good fidelity to the original protocol. 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.