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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 11,076–11,100 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 444 of 692)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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 efficacy of different IVIG on AD was significantly different, and only IVIG-C has been confirmed to possess significant neuroprotective effects, which are related to the inhibition of APP-MHC-I. IVIG may be a potential therapeutic for AD but further research is needed to evaluate the functional of IVIG before clinical trials of AD treatment. 3 key findings →
Studies suggest that tau deposition starts in the anterolateral entorhinal cortex (EC) with normal aging, and that the presence of β-amyloid (Aβ) facilitates its spread to neocortex, which may reflect the beginning of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
The validation of tau radioligands could improve the diagnosis of frontotemporal lobar degeneration and the assessment of disease-modifying therapies. 2 key findings →
The mechanisms underlying accumulation of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related tau pathology outside of the medial temporal lobe (MTL) in older adults are unknown but crucial to understanding cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
We investigated the effects of tau on repetition suppression, the reduction of activity for repeated stimulus presentations compared to novel stimuli. 5 key findings →
For AD, the pattern of regional involvement for FDG and PIB differ, but both techniques show high diagnostic accuracy and 94% case by case agreement. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2008-01-01
Our results suggesting more advanced pathological and functional brain changes in high-educated patients with mild AD are in accordance with the brain cognitive reserve hypothesis and point out the importance of development of reliable markers of underlying AD pathology for early AD diagnostics. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2013-10-08
The devastating effects of the still incurable Alzheimer's disease (AD) project an ever increasing shadow of burden on the health care system and society in general. 3 key findings →
In vivo imaging of amyloid burden with positron emission tomography (PET) provides a means for studying the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's and related diseases. 5 key findings →
While the clinical presentation of posterior cortical atrophy is clearly distinct from typical Alzheimer's disease, neuropathological studies have suggested that most patients with posterior cortical atrophy have Alzheimer's disease with an atypical visual presentation. 5 key findings →
Amyloid-β accumulation in the brain is thought to be one of the earliest events in Alzheimer's disease, possibly leading to synaptic dysfunction, neurodegeneration and cognitive/functional decline. 3 key findings →
Preliminary results showed that the distribution patterns of R(1) and pAV-45 images are highly correlated with normalized FDG images, and the initial 5-min early time frame of 1-6 min is potentially useful in providing complementary FDG-like information to the amyloid plaque density by late-phase AV-45 images. 3 key findings →
We developed a document for use with potential study participants to describe the process of amyloid imaging and the implications of amyloid imaging results; and a disclosure process with attention to ongoing monitoring of both mood and safety to receive this information. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2011-10-14
Different imaging modalities provide essential complementary information that can be used to enhance our understanding of brain disorders. 1 key finding →
Layers III and V exhibit clearer sublamination in area 9, while layer IV is also somewhat wider in area 46 than in area 9 (9.3% vs 6.4% of cortical thickness); the overall thickness of the cortex is the same in both areas. 3 key findings →
The fMRI and DTI results confirmed decreased connectivity from both the PCC and hippocampus to the whole brain in MCI and AD and reduction in connectivity between these two regions, which plausibly represents an early imaging biomarker for AD. 2 key findings →
The relationship of cortical structure and specific neuronal circuitry to global brain function, particularly its perturbations related to the development and progression of neuropathology, is an area of great interest in neurobehavioral science. 1 key finding →
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.