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 345 studies published 2002(page 8 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.
We linked Medicare claims data to information on 417 patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) to determine what proportion of them were identified as having Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Medicare claims records. 1 key finding →
The two most frequently examined biomarkers in the diagnosis of dementia are cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau and beta-amyloid(1-42) (Abeta(1-42)). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·CNS drug reviews·2002-01-01
It is extensively metabolized in numerous pathways, mainly in the liver via cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP2D6 and CYP3A4, and has a low potential for clinically significant drug-drug interactions. 5 key findings →
The present study addresses the following major questions: 1) Are the levels of an alpha-secretase candidate (i.e., ADAM10) reduced in accessible cells of Alzheimer Disease (AD) patients? 2) Are ADAM10 levels in the peripheral cells of AD patients related to a concomitant decrease in alpha APPs? 4 key findings →
We selected screening tests that met 2 criteria: 1) administration time of 10 minutes or less in studies including individuals with, and without, dementia; and 2) performance characteristics evaluated in at least 1 community or clinical sample of older adults. 4 key findings →
Differences in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) between subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and healthy volunteers were investigated using statistical parametric mapping (SPM99). 4 key findings →
Macrophage/microglia (M phi) are the principal immune cells in the central nervous system (CNS) concomitant with inflammatory brain disease and play a significant role in the host defense against invading microorganisms. 4 key findings →
Chemokines represent key factors in the outburst of the immune response, by activating and directing the leukocyte traffic, both in lymphopoiesis and in immune surveillance. 4 key findings →
Previous studies with positron-emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have indicated differences in neural metabolism and activity between carriers of the APOE epsilon4 allele and those who are not at risk for Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Estrogen reduces the risk of Alzheimer's disease in post-menopausal women, beta-amyloid (Abeta) burden in animal models of Alzheimer's disease, and secretion of Abeta from neuronal cultures. 4 key findings →
The authors, a group of investigators with extensive research and clinical experience related to both late-life depression and Alzheimer disease (AD), propose provisional affective and behavioral inclusion and exclusion diagnostic criteria for Depression of AD.
The ability to detect patients at high risk for Alzheimer type dementia among those with minor cognitive impairment increases when data on age and memory function are combined with measures of medial temporal lobe atrophy. 3 key findings →
White matter changes in patients with Alzheimer's disease are likely to be secondary to wallerian degeneration of fibre tracts due to neuronal loss in cortical associative areas. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2002-03-01
High LDL and total cholesterol levels are associated with cognitive impairment, and lowering these lipoprotein levels may be a strategy for preventing impairment. 5 key findings →
Despite the limitation of a cross-sectional design, our initial findings suggest that there is a strong association between medical comorbidity and cognitive status in AD. 3 key findings →
Although DSCR1 (Adapt78) has been associated with successful adaptation to oxidative stress and calcium stress and with devastating diseases such as Alzheimer's and Down syndrome, no rationale for these apparently contradictory findings has been tested. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2002-07-01
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors may be helpful in reversing the symptoms of dementia during early and middle stages of cognitive decline. 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.