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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 9,976–10,000 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 400 of 1086)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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 findings confirm predictions regarding behavioural differences in frontotemporal and semantic dementia and point to differential roles of the frontal and temporal lobes in affect, social functioning, eating, and compulsive behaviour. 2 key findings →
Multiple system atrophy (MSA) has varying clinical (MSA-P versus MSA-C) and pathological [striatonigral degeneration (SND) versus olivopontocerebellar atrophy (OPCA)] phenotypes. 5 key findings →
Frontotemporal dementia with parkinsonism, chromosome 17 type (FTDP-17) is caused by mutations in the tau gene, and the signature lesions of FTDP-17 are filamentous tau inclusions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1997-06-01
We held an international consensus conference on frontotemporal dementia, behavioral disturbances, and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 to determine whether these are homogeneous or heterogeneous disorders, to agree on terminology, and to develop strategies for further research. 3 key findings →
Recently, mutations in the progranulin (PGRN) gene were found to cause familial and apparently sporadic frontotemporal lobe dementia (FTLD). 1 key finding →
TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is a highly conserved nuclear RNA/DNA-binding protein involved in the regulation of RNA processing. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·The EMBO journal·2016-06-22
A GGGGCC hexanucleotide repeat expansion in the C9orf72 gene is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (C9ALS/FTD). 1 key finding →
Pallido-ponto-nigral degeneration (PPND) is one of the most well characterized familial neurodegenerative disorders linked to chromosome 17q21-22. 5 key findings →
Pathologic TAR-DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is a disease protein in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 4 key findings →
The disease protein in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was identified recently as the TDP-43 (TAR DNA-binding protein 43), thereby providing a molecular link between these two disorders. 2 key findings →
Glial proliferation and activation are associated with disease progression in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal lobar dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2008-01-30
The present study describes the pathological progression of longitudinally followed cases with levodopa-responsive Parkinson's disease who came to autopsy during the Sydney Multicenter Study of Parkinson's disease. 2 key findings →
Choline acetyltransferase activity (presynaptic cholinergic system) and high affinity binding of cholinergic antagonists (postsynaptic cholinergic system) were measured in brain tissue removed after death from both mentally normal and demented old people. 2 key findings →
Cortical thickness is a more reliable measure of atrophy than volume due to the low variability in the cytoarchitectural structure of the grey matter. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2010-12-10
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases affect over 20 million people worldwide, and this number is projected to significantly increase in the coming decades. 4 key findings →
Subjective cognitive complaints are a criterion for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), despite their uncertain relationship to objective memory performance in MCI. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2012-10-02
Predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD) in individuals with some symptoms of cognitive decline may have great influence on treatment choice and disease progression. 4 key findings →
Given the increased risk of progression to dementia for those identified as having MCI, the role of awareness should be explored further with due consideration given to the conceptualization of awareness and the methodology employed. 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.