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 345 studies published 2002(page 5 of 14)· 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.
The authors report the prevalence of dementia in a community-dwelling Brazilian elderly population and correlate prevalence data with educational and socioeconomic levels. 4 key findings →
The early diagnosis of vascular cognitive impairment has been challenged and executive control function has been suggested to be a rational basis for the diagnosis of vascular dementia. 4 key findings →
Human lumbar CSF patterns of Abeta peptides were analysed by urea-based beta-amyloid sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis with western immunoblot (Abeta-SDS-PAGE/immunoblot). 4 key findings →
Two apolipoprotein E (apoE) receptors, the very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) receptor and apoE receptor 2 (apoER2), are also receptors for Reelin, a signaling protein that regulates neuronal migration during brain development. 3 key findings →
Lipid peroxidation is one of the major outcomes of free radical-mediated injury that directly damages membranes and generates a number of secondary products, both from fission and endocyclization of oxygenated fatty acids that possess neurotoxic activity. 5 key findings →
The objective of this study was to describe the occurrence of HIV dementia and neuropsychological testing abnormalities in a new cohort of HIV-seropositive individuals at high risk for HIV dementia and to compare these results to a cohort before the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2002-03-01
These findings indicate that in patients with MCI, the patient's lack of awareness of functional deficits identified by informants strongly predicts a future diagnosis of AD. 5 key findings →
The short and long term effects of CEIs were evaluated in 135 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease relative to 135 patients who were never exposed to CEIs matched by age, education, duration of the symptoms, and cognitive status. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of degenerative dementia and is characterized by progressive impairment in cognitive function during mid- to late-adult life. 4 key findings →
Mount Carmel Health has developed an APCS and APCU integrated into the mainstream of each of its hospitals, providing an opportunity for a more appropriate focus on end-of-life issues for patients with poor prognoses, intense medical needs, and complex family issues. 2 key findings →
The purpose of this study is to explore the possibility of progressive neuropsychological decline in chronic temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) and determine how this vulnerability may be associated with the neurodevelopmental impact of the disorder. 53 patients with TLE and 62 healthy controls underwent quantitative MRI volumetric imaging of total brain tissue and hippocampal volumes as well as assessment of intelligence and memory function. 5 key findings →
After adjusting for age, race, and gender, persons with Alzheimer's disease and dementia associated with medical conditions were less likely to be diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation than were controls. 5 key findings →
The General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) consists of cognitive test items and historical questions asked of an informant. 4 key findings →
Recent epidemiological and clinico-pathologic data suggest overlaps between Alzheimer disease (AD) and cerebrovascular lesions that may magnify the effect of mild AD pathology and promote progression of cognitive decline or even may precede neuronal damage and dementia. 3 key findings →
The identification of amyloid deposits in living Alzheimer disease (AD) patients is important for both early diagnosis and for monitoring the efficacy of newly developed anti-amyloid therapies. 5 key findings →
The current study sought to determine if discrepancies in quality of education could explain differences in cognitive test scores between African American and White elders matched on years of education. 3 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.