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 176–200 of 1,426 studies scoring ≤ 29 out of 100 (page 8 of 58)· 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.
This paper examined the prevalence of and risk factors associated with unmet needs for activities of daily living (ADL) for older adults dying with dementia. 2 key findings →
Providing end-of-life care for patients with COPD, dementia, and cancer involves a focus on symptom management, integration of palliative care, and respecting patient preferences, while engaging families in the care process. 1 key finding →
The mitigation measures (e.g., lockdown policies) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted food systems in unprecedented ways, in both scope and immediacy. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 28 out of 100.·Stats·2022-09-11
The use of hierarchical Bayesian small area models, which take survey estimates along with auxiliary data as input to produce official statistics, has increased in recent years. 2 key findings →
Manganese-superoxide dismutase (Mn-SOD) was localized in the cerebral cortex and hippocampus of patients with Alzheimer-type senile dementia (ATD) by immunocytochemistry and the relationship of Mn-SOD with two major pathological features of ATD, i.e., senile plaques and neurofibrillar tangles (NFTs), was examined. 2 key findings →
Early hypoxic-ischemic brain lesions were examined regarding 26 autopsy cases which had severe asphyxia at birth and died within the first week. 1 key finding →
Using anti-SP28 (a polyclonal antibody to a 28 residue synthetic peptide homologous to the NH2-terminal region of Alzheimer amyloid beta-protein) to investigate the cerebral cortex of 8 Alzheimer and 6 Down patients and 13 nondemented individuals, we found that, besides senile plaques and congophilic vessels, extracellular deposits unrelated to degenerating neurites, tangle-bearing neurons or congophilic vessels were labelled. 1 key finding →
The present study investigated the frequency and distribution of TUNEL-positive neurons in brains of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) in comparison with those in brains of Alzheimer's disease (AD), Down syndrome (DS) and non-demented elderly persons. 2 key findings →
This study sought to test the hypothesis that adults with Down Syndrome may age faster than the general population by comparing the rate of increase in their mortality with age with that of the general population by the method originally described by Gompertz. 1 key finding →
Para psychotic troubles in Mentally Handicapped Persons (particularly in Down syndrome)-Clinical examples of M.H.P. which had no trouble until their 25-40 (years) except their intellectual defect and then, slide in psychiatric or para psychiatric behaviour. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100.·Revista de neurologia·2014-04-01
The new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) include brain imaging and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, with the aim of increasing the certainty of whether a patient has an ongoing AD neuropathologic process or not. 4 key findings →
Tau protein and amyloid s (Abeta), two major components of neuropathology in Alzheimer disease (AD), have been applied for establishment of more useful biomarkers and therapeutic approaches. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder whose etiology continues to be discussed, to the point that there are different hypotheses that seek to clarify it, in addition to the fact that, given its multifactorial nature, there are different risk factors associated with its development. 4 key findings →
On June 7, 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved aducanumab, a monoclonal amyloid targeting β-amyloid, for the treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Various medicinal agents aimed at improving Alzheimer disease (AD) include cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, aducanumab, and antioxidants. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100.·Der Nervenarzt·2022-03-14
The recent approval of aduhelm/aducanumab by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 raised hopes that further substances against Alzheimer's disease might be approved in the near future. 4 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.