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 126–150 of 531 studies published 2006(page 6 of 22)· 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 55 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2006-06-01
Clinical and neuropsychological features contribute to delineating the spectrum of pathology underlying a patient diagnosed with FTLD, but biomarkers are needed that, together with the clinical phenotype, can predict the underlying neuropathology. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Pain·2006-02-10
Expectation/placebo-related mechanisms and specific effects of therapies show additive effects, such that a therapy is less effective if the placebo component is absent. 2 key findings →
The prevalence of dementia in this population is similar to that reported from other areas in mainland China and Taiwan with aging being a significant risk factor. 3 key findings →
During the 6534 person-years of follow-up (mean, 5.02 years per person), 440 subjects were diagnosed as having dementia, including 333 with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
A comprehensive, unbiased inventory of synuclein forms present in Lewy bodies from patients with dementia with Lewy bodies was carried out using two-dimensional immunoblot analysis, novel sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays with modification-specific synuclein antibodies, and mass spectroscopy. 1 key finding →
Apraxia of speech (AOS) is a motor speech disorder characterized by slow speaking rate, abnormal prosody and distorted sound substitutions, additions, repetitions and prolongations, sometimes accompanied by groping, and trial and error articulatory movements. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2006-01-09
Neuronal degeneration and dopamine loss in the preclinical phase of Parkinson disease may produce subtle complaints before clinically recognizable symptoms emerge. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neuropsychology·2006-11-01
Alzheimer's disease (AD) reduces associative effects on false recognition in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott task, either due to impaired memory for gist or impaired use of gist in memory decisions. 5 key findings →
Older adults with hip fracture are at risk for underassessment of pain, considerable delays in analgesic administration after pain is identified, and treatment with inappropriate analgesics (e.g., meperidine) in the ED. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Neuroepidemiology·2006-10-10
We developed prediction rules to guide the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in two community-based cohort studies (the Religious Orders Study and the Rush Memory and Aging Project). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-07-01
20 (45%) patients developed a neurological disorder after a mean of 11.5 years from the reported onset of RBD and a mean follow-up of 5.1 years from the diagnosis of idiopathic RBD at our sleep centre. 3 key findings →
These results suggest that the SLUMS and MMSE have comparable sensitivities, specificities, and area under the curve in detecting dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neuropsychologia·2006-11-27
This study examined the effect of lifelong bilingualism on maintaining cognitive functioning and delaying the onset of symptoms of dementia in old age. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-09-01
Cognitive complaints in older adults may indicate underlying neurodegenerative changes even when unaccompanied by deficits on formal testing. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-01-01
Cerebral microbleeds might indicate a higher risk of future intracerebral hemorrhage and may be a marker of cerebral small-vessel disease and cerebral amyloid angiopathy. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-08-01
Different patterns of gray matter density distribution in patients with mild cognitive impairment may be associated to different rates of conversion to Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2006-02-01
Caregivers' reasons for placement included (a) the need for more skilled care (65%); (b) the caregivers' health (49%); (c) the patients' dementia-related behaviors (46%); and (d) the need for more assistance (23%). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-08-01
Mild cognitive impairment as originally and currently defined is usually early stage Alzheimer disease, which can begin with a cognitive deficit other than memory. 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 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.