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 101–125 of 218 studies published 1997(page 5 of 9)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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 45 out of 100.·Neuroreport·1997-05-01
Genetic variation in the APOE gene and variation in chromosome 21 genotypes, including the APP locus, may influence age-associated cognitive decline in adults with Down syndrome. 3 key findings →
Recent studies have shown that deficient functioning of glutamate transporters (GTs) in Alzheimer disease (AD) might lead to neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
The neural protein FE65 contains two types of protein-protein interaction modules: one WW binding domain and two phosphotyrosine binding domains. 4 key findings →
The cognitive assessment protocol of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) was designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of cognitive assessment measures that might be valuable additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) or other concise batteries used in antidementia drug trials.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·1997-06-01
Dementia adversely affects driving performance even in its mild stages, although some persons with DAT seem to drive safely for some time after disease onset. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Age and ageing·1997-09-01
Design review and abstraction of medical records and computerized data bases from 5986 members, aged 65 years and older, of a large health maintenance organization in northern California. 1 key finding →
The authors examined whether measurement of resistance to outflow of cerebrospinal fluid (Rcsf) predicts outcome after shunting for patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). 5 key findings →
The association between Alzheimer caregiving and natural killer (NK) cell activity and basal plasma levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), cortisol, beta-endorphin, prolactin, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and neuropeptide Y was determined in 100 spousal Alzheimer caregivers and 33 age- and gender-comparable control volunteers upon intake into a study of the psychological and physiologic impact of caregiving. 4 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (apoE) is associated with several classes of plasma lipoproteins and mediates uptake of lipoproteins through its ability to interact with specific cell surface receptors. 4 key findings →
This article reports the development and psychometric properties of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC).
We conducted two studies with medically hospitalized cancer and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients to assess the reliability and validity of a new measure of delirium severity, the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). 4 key findings →
The clbC form of methylmalonic acidaemia is a rare and poorly understood condition which results from impaired biosynthesis of methylcobalamin and adenosylcobalamin. 3 key findings →
Those who did not complete the dialysis-specific living will chose not to because they were not sure what they would want done (12 of 16 patients [75%]). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·1997-01-01
We have previously reported smaller hippocampal volume and deficits in short-term memory in patients with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) relative to comparison subjects. 2 key findings →
Volumetric measures in a group of patients with traumatic brain injury who had received MR imaging 3 months or less after injury were compared with measurements in other patients in the chronic phase of recovery. 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.