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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 18,176–18,200 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 728 of 1086)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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.
Internet-based SLT using person-centered interventions provides a feasible model for delivering care to individuals with dementia and mild/moderate aphasia symptoms who have an engaged care-partner and prior familiarity with a computer. 1 key finding →
Time requirements for the medication administration process are substantial in LTC and are compounded when nurses are unfamiliar with residents. 1 key finding →
Besides their diagnostic use, MRI and DTI will broaden our understanding of the pathophysiology of AD and the structural and functional basis of normal cognition. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neurology·1998-01-01
Cerebellar disorders associated with HIV infection are typically the result of discrete cerebellar lesions resulting from opportunistic infections such as toxoplasmosis and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy or primary CNS lymphoma. 2 key findings →
Patients with advanced Parkinson's disease had a significantly higher disease impairment, longer disease duration, and an unstable motor response to levodopa with frequent on-off fluctuations. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·1993-02-01
The profile of aphasia suggests that primary progressive aphasia tends to affect anterior parts of the language-dominant cortex first. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2007-10-01
An 82-year-old man presented with progressive changes in personality, social conduct, and executive function with preservation of memory, deteriorating from baseline to requiring acute hospitalization within 6 months. 1 key finding →
This study has shown that physical restraints are used frequently in geriatric care in Sweden and that cognitive and physical impairments relate very closely to the use of physical restraints. 2 key findings →
Probands (n = 3607) living in long-term care institutions in the county of Västerbotten were assessed to estimate whether the prevalence of dementia in different types of institutions had changed since a similar survey was made 7 years before. 5 key findings →
Allostasis designates processes of bodily adaptation to stressful challenges, whereas allostatic load means the costs of wear and tear to the body as a consequence of inefficient allostasis. 2 key findings →
Since the first mitochondrial dysfunction was described in the 1960s, the medicine has advanced in its understanding the role mitochondria play in health, disease, and aging. 5 key findings →
The proteinopathy sporadic Parkinson's disease (sPD) is the second most frequent degenerative disorder of the human nervous system after Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
The results suggest a broad impairment in EF in adolescents with DS, and are consistent with several similar studies conducted with adults with DS. 3 key findings →
Down syndrome (DS) is the most common cause of mental retardation in North America, yet little information is available on the natural history of DS in adults. 4 key findings →
Down syndrome (DS) or trisomy 21 is the genetic disease with highest prevalence displaying phenotypic features that both include neurologic deficiencies and a number of clinical outcomes. 5 key findings →
Bach1, among the genes encoded on chromosome 21, is a transcription repressor, which binds to antioxidant response elements of DNA thus inhibiting the transcription of specific genes involved in the cell stress response including heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1). 1 key finding →
Adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology progressively with age but clinical signs of dementia are delayed by at least 10 years after the first signs of disease. 5 key findings →
Both sporadic and familial Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients exhibit increased chromosome aneuploidy, particularly trisomy 21, in neurons and other cells. 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.