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 788 studies published 2014(page 5 of 32)· 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 63 out of 100.·PloS one·2014-02-26
In a large IRBD cohort diagnosed in a tertiary referal sleep center, prolonged follow-up indicated that the majority of patients are eventually diagnosed with the synucleinopathies PD, DLB and less frequently MSA. 3 key findings →
Evidence strongly supports the important role of insulin resistance in cognitive decline and dementia and suggests that insulin sensitizers may protect against cognitive decline in diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals. 5 key findings →
There is substantial neuropsychological decline in schizophrenia from the premorbid to the postonset period, but the extent and developmental progression of decline varies across mental functions. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-10-24
We investigated induction of α-secretase A disintegrin and metalloprotease 10 (ADAM10) by the synthetic retinoid acitretin (Neotigason; Actavis, München-Riem, Germany) in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) via measurement of CSF content of α-secretase-derived amyloid precursor protein (APPs-α). 4 key findings →
Studies of long-term cognitive change should account for the potential effects of education on the outcome, since some studies have demonstrated an association of education with dementia risk. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·The Lancet Neurology·2014-07-13
Researchers analyzed population-based data and relative risks from existing meta-analyses to estimate the population-attributable risk of Alzheimer's disease worldwide, in the USA, Europe, and the UK for seven potentially modifiable risk factors.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-07-08
Carriers (n = 39) and noncarriers (n = 36) had similar neuropsychological performance, except for lower Letter Digit Substitution Test scores in carriers. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·PLoS medicine·2014-09-16
Although altered lipid metabolism has been extensively implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) through cell biological, epidemiological, and genetic studies, the molecular mechanisms linking cholesterol and AD pathology are still not well understood and contradictory results have been reported. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2014-07-01
Persons with severe CAA compared with those without CAA were more likely to carry an APOE ε4 allele (64.9% vs 42.8%, respectively; P Conclusions and relevance Being Hispanic and having had a transient ischemic attack-like episode were predictors of CAA in persons with AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-12-03
The findings support the cross-cultural use of a relatively inexpensive odor identification test as an early biomarker of cognitive decline and AD dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Hippocampus·2014-12-26
Hippocampal atrophy is associated with memory impairment and dementia and serves as a key biomarker in the preclinical stages of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2014-10-28
We recommend a new term, "primary age-related tauopathy" (PART), to describe a pathology that is commonly observed in the brains of aged individuals. 5 key findings →
Levels of P-S396-tau, P-T181-tau, and Aβ1-42 in extracts of neurally derived blood exosomes predict the development of AD up to 10 years before clinical onset. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-09-17
These findings support the hypothesis that both the DASH and Mediterranean diet patterns are associated with slower rates of cognitive decline in the same cohort of older persons. 5 key findings →
Previous animal models and structural imaging investigations have linked hippocampal neuroplasticity to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) response, but the relationship between changes in hippocampal volume and temporal coherence in the context of ECT response is unknown. 2 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.