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 642 studies published 2011(page 4 of 26)· 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.
Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2011-11-20
We present a practical guide for the implementation of recently revised National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association guidelines for the neuropathologic assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2011-07-28
Recent genetic and proteomic studies demonstrate that clusterin/apolipoprotein-J is associated with risk, pathology, and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Two phase 3 studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone (RSG), a type 2 diabetes treatment, in an extended release (RSG XR) form as adjunctive therapy to ongoing acetylcholine esterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment in AD (REFLECT-2, adjunctive to donepezil; REFLECT-3, to any AChEI). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-02-16
This article provides a classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and its 3 main variants to improve the uniformity of case reporting and the reliability of research results. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Psicothema·2011-02-01
The study aims to assess the efficacy of the Big Brain Academy (BBA), a computerized cognitive training program (CT) based on video games, compared to the Integrated Psychostimulation Program (IPP), a classical CT tool for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
This study demonstrates that patients with dementia who suffer a hip fracture can benefit from multidisciplinary geriatric assessment and rehabilitation and should not be excluded from rehabilitation programs. 1 key finding →
Several magnetic resonance imaging studies have reported hippocampal volume reduction in patients with schizophrenia, but other studies have reported contrasting results. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Diabetes care·2011-06-16
Metabolic dysregulation, especially insulin resistance, was associated with lower brain volumes and executive function in a large, relatively healthy, middle-aged, community-based cohort. 3 key findings →
Social activity is associated with a decreased risk of incident disability in activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living, among community-dwelling older adults. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100.·Neurology·2011-07-13
Increased serum proinflammatory cytokines are associated with the presence of symptoms characteristic of sickness behavior, which are common neuropsychiatric features found in AD. 3 key findings →
Motor inactivity is typical in the later stages of Alzheimer's disease although there is evidence that physical exercise can reduce depression and enhance performance of daily activities. 2 key findings →
High BP accelerates gait slowing in well-functioning older adults over a long period of time, even for those who control their BP or develop hypertension later in life. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Stroke·2011-08-11
Baseline DBP and longitudinal increases in DBP were independently associated with a greater WMHV, and the association between DBP and WMHV was greatest among blacks. 4 key findings →
Aortic stiffness increases with age and vascular risk factor exposure and is associated with increased risk for structural and functional abnormalities in the brain. 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.