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 76–100 of 345 studies published 2002(page 4 of 14)· 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.
The idea of reserve against brain damage stems from the repeated observation that there does not appear to be a direct relationship between the degree of brain pathology or brain damage and the clinical manifestation of that damage.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2002-05-01
The development of interventions designed to delay the onset of dementia highlights the need to determine the neuropathologic characteristics of individuals whose cognitive function ranges from intact to demented, including those with mild cognitive impairments. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-01-01
Although FTD and SemD are associated with different overall patterns of brain atrophy, regions of gray matter tissue loss in the orbital frontal, insular, and anterior cingulate regions are present in both groups. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common dementing illness in the elderly, but there is equivocal evidence regarding the frequency of other disorders such as Lewy body disease (LBD), vascular dementia (VaD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and hippocampal sclerosis (HS). 5 key findings →
To identify genes influencing age at onset (AAO) in two common neurodegenerative diseases, a genomic screen was performed for AAO in families with Alzheimer disease (AD; n=449) and Parkinson disease (PD; n=174). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2002-08-01
Higher intake of calories and fats may be associated with higher risk of AD in individuals carrying the apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele. 5 key findings →
A working group supported by the Office of Rare Diseases of the National Institutes of Health formulated neuropathologic criteria for corticobasal degeneration (CBD) that were subsequently validated by an independent group of neuropathologists. 5 key findings →
The identification of mutations in the Tau gene in frontotemporal dementia and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17) has made it possible to express human tau protein with pathogenic mutations in transgenic animals. 5 key findings →
A key aspect of social cognition is the ability to infer other people's mental states, thoughts and feelings; referred to as 'theory of mind' (ToM). 2 key findings →
Polycystic lipomembranous osteodysplasia with sclerosing leukoencephalopathy (PLOSL), also known as "Nasu-Hakola disease," is a globally distributed recessively inherited disease leading to death during the 5th decade of life and is characterized by early-onset progressive dementia and bone cysts. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2002-01-01
We identified 13 patients with a clinical diagnosis of PD who experienced dementia at least 4 years after parkinsonism onset (mean, 10.5 years) and subsequently underwent postmortem examination. 4 key findings →
Power analyses for voxels showing maximal decline over the 1-year period in regional cerebral glucose metabolism (mg/100 g per minute) were computed to estimate the sample sizes needed to detect a significant treatment response in a 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment study. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-12-01
Frequency of participation in cognitively stimulating activities appears to be associated with risk of AD and may partially explain the association of educational and occupational attainment with disease risk. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2002-11-04
Levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), a neuroprotective hormone, decrease in serum during aging, whereas amyloid-beta (Abeta), which is involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease, accumulates in the brain. 5 key findings →
Dementia affects about 5% of the elderly population over age 65 years and has an unexplained predominance in women and a low rate in some cultures. 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.