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 976–1,000 of 1,212 studies published 2019(page 40 of 49)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Genes·2019-03-15
Human longevity is a complex phenotype resulting from the combinations of context-dependent gene-environment interactions that require analysis as a dynamic process in a cohesive ecological and evolutionary framework. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia characterized by the deposition of extracellular amyloid-β (Aβ)-containing plaques, the formation of intraneuronal neurofibrillary tangles as well as neuroinflammatory changes. 5 key findings →
Early-onset familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD) is pathologically and clinically similar to the more common late-onset sporadic form of the disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2019-04-15
Retention of 18F-Flortaucipir is reportedly increased in the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), which is dominated by TDP-43 pathology. 2 key findings →
Despite the presence of abundant tau aggregates in multiple regions in all CTE brains, only faint or no [18F]-AV-1451 binding signal could be detected by autoradiography. 5 key findings →
[18F]AV-1451 is one of the most widely used radiotracers for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of tau protein aggregates in neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →
Regional standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) for tau positron emission tomography (PET) were compared among 19 cognitively normal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative control individuals, 20 HIV-negative patients with symptomatic Alzheimer disease, 15 cognitively normal HIV-positive individuals, and 17 cognitively impaired HIV-positive individuals. 1 key finding →
These findings suggested that occipitoparietal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex and precuneus, which were particularly affected by increased tau accumulation in VS-AD patients, may associate with visuospatial dysfunction of AD. 2 key findings →
Following the conversion of FBB or FMM SUVRs into CL units, a direct relationship was formed between the FBB or FMM SUVRs and the CL units using dcCL method (FBB dcCL = 151.42 × FBB dcSUVR - 142.24 and FMM dcCL = 148.52 × FMM dcSUVR - 137.09). 4 key findings →
We found that education level was positively associated with a wide range of complex cognitive domains including general mental status, episodic memory, language, attention, executive function and visuospatial processing, and it showed significantly negative correlations with FC of multiple areas in the Default Mode Network (DMN) and Left Frontal-parietal Network (LFP) which are related to complex cognition. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2019-11-30
Mild cognitive impairment is defined as greater cognitive decline than expected for a person at a particular age and is sometimes considered a stage between healthy aging and Alzheimer's disease or other dementia syndromes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2019-03-13
Accumulating evidence suggests that memory is impaired in posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), alongside the early and defining visual disorder. 3 key findings →
Using AI for dementia diagnosis is still in research stage, however some of the work points to the development of new medical devices. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2019-06-22
The default-mode network (DMN) and its principal core hubs in the posterior midline cortices (PMC), i.e., the precuneus and the posterior cingulate cortex, play a critical role in the human brain structural and functional architecture. 2 key findings →
Many ocular diseases (such as glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, and traumatic eye injuries) can result in the degeneration of retinal cells and the subsequent loss of vision. 1 key finding →
In terms of the retinal neuronal structure, multiple retinal neuronal layers are significantly thinner in Alzheimer's disease dementia, such as the parapapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL). 4 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.