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 801–825 of 1,079 studies published 2017(page 33 of 44)· 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.
Although the potential contribution of the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract microbiome to human health, aging, and disease is becoming increasingly acknowledged, the molecular mechanics and signaling pathways of just how this is accomplished is not well-understood. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2017-10-18
It has previously been shown that the consumption of probiotics may have beneficial effects not only on peripheral tissues but also on the central nervous system and behavior via the microbiota-gut-brain axis, raising the possibility that treatment with probiotics could be an effective therapeutic strategy for managing neurodegenerative disorders. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2017-09-05
Recent evidence suggests the commensal microbiome regulates host immunity and influences brain function; findings that have ramifications for neurodegenerative diseases. 2 key findings →
The aggregation of amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) has been linked to the formation of neuritic plaques, which are pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2017-01-16
The CNS is protected by the immune system, including cells that reside directly within the CNS and help to ensure proper neural function, as well as cells that traffic into the CNS with disease. 5 key findings →
Ensuring cellular protein homeostasis, or proteostasis, requires precise control of protein synthesis, folding, conformational maintenance, and degradation. 1 key finding →
In the 12 years since the publication of the first Consensus Paper of the WFSBP on biomarkers of neurodegenerative dementias, enormous advancement has taken place in the field, and the Task Force takes now the opportunity to extend and update the original paper. 3 key findings →
Based on these findings, various actions are recommended for development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics of assistive and health technologies across Europe. 2 key findings →
Although strong findings have shown the positive effects of GH/IGF-1 administration on neuroregeneration in animal models, a very limited number of clinical studies have been conducted in humans. 5 key findings →
The use of essential oils (EOs) and their components is known since long in traditional medicine and aromatherapy for the management of various diseases, and is further increased in the recent times. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2017-06-13
Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), previously believed to be a common cause of atypical parkinsonism, is now recognised as a range of motor and behavioural syndromes that are associated with a characteristic 4-repeat tau neuropathology. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neuropsychologia·2017-07-08
Apathy is a debilitating syndrome associated with many neurological disorders, including several common neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, and focal lesion syndromes such as stroke. 2 key findings →
Using subset of optimal features in SVM, we classified MCI-C from MCI-NC with an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 91.4%, 83.24%, 90.1%, and 0.95, respectively. 3 key findings →
Recent studies on brain imaging analysis witnessed the core roles of machine learning techniques in computer-assisted intervention for brain disease diagnosis. 1 key finding →
Our findings may suggest potential deficiencies in ambulatory care and postdischarge care related to managing comorbidities among Medicare fee-for-service ADRD patients. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2017-05-31
The modern antiretroviral treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection has considerably lowered the incidence of opportunistic infections. 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 27,380 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.