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 531 studies published 2006(page 4 of 22)· 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.
A structured multicomponent intervention adapted to individual risk profiles can increase the quality of life of ethnically diverse dementia caregivers. 1 key finding →
This initial report describes the ongoing 4-year longitudinal study and provides baseline results, which confirm the feasibility of obtaining home-based clinical information via mail or telephone. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2006-01-13
In this large multicentre and long-term population-based study, some well-known risk factors for dementia, of vascular and Alzheimer's type, are confirmed but not others. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-05-01
Cognitive function was inversely related to all measures of disease pathology, indicating lower function at more severe levels of pathology. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2006-03-14
In this study, researchers assessed the validity and reliability of an automated labeling system developed to subdivide the human cerebral cortex on magnetic resonance images into gyral based regions of interest. 3 key findings →
Atorvastatin therapy may be of benefit in the treatment of mild-to-moderately affected AD patients, but the level of benefit produced may be predicated on earlier treatment, an individual's apolipoprotein E genotype or whether the patient exhibits elevated cholesterol levels. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2006-04-01
Interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10 is specifically increased in MCI and seems to decrease with the progression of AD, whereas MCP-1 and IL-8 are up-regulated also in late stages of the disease, suggesting a role in phases in which neurodegeneration is prevalent. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2006-08-12
Assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related neurofibrillary pathology requires a procedure that permits a sufficient differentiation between initial, intermediate, and late stages. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2006-08-22
We included 134 consecutive bedridden end-stage dementia patients admitted during a 36-month period, and surviving in the ward for <6 months. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2006-12-01
Persons with MCI also have impaired motor function, and the degree of impairment in lower extremity function is related to the risk of AD. 1 key finding →
These responder analyses may assist clinicians in evaluating the impact of memantine in a relevant clinical scenario, i.e., in patients with AD previously stabilized on a cholinesterase inhibitor. 3 key findings →
The authors believe these design elements are important features to be included in trials of depression and other neuropsychiatric disturbances in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-03-01
During follow-up, 57 (42%) patients with MCI developed Alzheimer's disease, 21 (15%) developed other forms of dementia, and 56 (41%) remained cognitively stable for 5.2 years (range 4.0-6.8). 1 key finding →
Coping style may be more associated with anxiety than depression while other covariates (burden and poor physical health) are similar to those for caregiver depression. 5 key findings →
Null mutations in the progranulin gene (PGRN) were recently reported to cause tau-negative frontotemporal dementia linked to chromosome 17. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-10-01
Mutation carriers had significantly increased hippocampal and whole-brain atrophy rates compared with controls and these differences increased with time. 2 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.