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 776–800 of 808 studies published 2013(page 32 of 33)· 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.
Recently, there have been great interests for computer-aided diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodromal stage, mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2013-12-04
High levels of education, occupational complexity, and/or premorbid intelligence are associated with lower levels of cognitive impairment than would be expected from a given brain pathology. 1 key finding →
Impairment of cognitive processes is a devastating outcome of many diseases, injuries, and drugs affecting the central nervous system (CNS). 2 key findings →
The previously reported high risk levels for dementia among people with Down syndrome was confirmed in these data as was the value of the instruments utilised in tracking decline and helping to confirm diagnosis even in persons with severe intellectual disability. 3 key findings →
DS is the most frequent genetic cause of intellectual disability characterized by the anomalous presence of three copies of chromosome 21. 5 key findings →
In addition to intellectual disability, individuals with Down syndrome (DS) exhibit dementia by the third or fourth decade of life, due to the early onset of neuropathological changes typical of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Curcumin is the major yellow pigment extracted from turmeric, a commonly used spice in Asian cuisine and extensively employed in ayurvedic herbal remedies. 2 key findings →
Depression is a multicausal disorder and has been associated with the risk to develop cancer, dementia, diabetes, epilepsy and stroke. 2 key findings →
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association is referred to as DSM-5™. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100.·Revue neurologique·2013-08-30
The adaption of the battery for French-speaking subjects is reported as well as preliminary results of the on-going validation study of the GRECOG-VASC group [Clinical Trial NCT01339195]. 4 key findings →
The goals of this study were to compare the early diagnostic utility of Alzheimer disease biomarkers in the CSF with those in brain MRI in conditions found in our clinical practice, and to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of both techniques used together. 4 key findings →
On supplementary questioning, he revealed multiple recent social stressors, including the 1-year anniversary of his partner's death and an impending eviction from his home with the loss of his beloved garden. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Amino acids·2013-04-19
Nardilysin is a metalloprotease that cleaves peptides, such as dynorphin-A, α-neoendorphin, and glucagon, at the N-terminus of arginine and lysine residues in dibasic moieties. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2013-12-31
fifty-five geriatricians responded. Ninety-one per cent were consultant physicians, and 71% were not involved in outpatient diagnostic services. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Pediatrics in Review·2013-07-01
In the history of psychiatry, the words mad and psychosis have often been used interchangeably, negatively contributing to the stigma associated with the term and the illness itself. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100.·World Psychiatry·2013-10-01
The role of primary health care has been studied in several sites and the results are promising, with an emphasis on the usefulness of community support and non-pharmacological interventions 10, 11. 3 key findings →
Recent data have allowed speculating that amyloid Aβ induces apoptosis via opening type-1 VDAC in cell membranes of hypo-metabolic neurons, a process most likely running over life time--as leaves fall from trees in the tropics--and ending in Alzheimer's disease whenever critical brain regions are affected. 5 key findings →
MemoryCare, in its 13th year of operation in Asheville, NC, is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to providing medical care to older adults with cognitive impairment inclusive of a case management component that provides support and education to their families and caregivers. 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 27,380 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.