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 355 studies published 2003(page 8 of 15)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Medicine·2003-05-01
We performed an observational analysis of prospectively collected data on 1,474 adult patients who were hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia; 1,169 patients were under 80 years of age and 305 (21%) patients were over 80 years ("very elderly"). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·The Gerontologist·2003-08-01
Caregivers in the combined family therapy and technology intervention experienced a significant reduction in depressive symptoms at 6 months. 4 key findings →
Some studies have suggested that people with a high educational level have a lower risk of developing dementia compared to people with a low educational level. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Brain·2003-06-23
An alternative model, the multiple trace theory (MTT), suggests that the capacity of the MTL to recollect episodic memories is of a more permanent nature. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Proteomics·2003-08-01
The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia in the general population, usually relies upon the presence of typical clinical features and structural changes on brain magnetic resonance imaging. 1 key finding →
S. lavandulaefolia Vahl. (Spanish sage) extracts and constituents have demonstrated anticholinesterase, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, oestrogenic and CNS depressant (sedative) effects all of which are currently relevant to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
We conducted a quantitative investigation of brain arterial atherosclerotic damage and its relationship to sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
We have characterized a cluster of single immunoglobulin variable (IgV) domain receptors centromeric of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) on human chromosome 6. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurology·2003-10-28
The authors describe a 28-year-old woman with histopathologically confirmed early onset Alzheimer disease characterized by severe frontal lobe involvement associated with a de novo mutation in the presenilin 1 gene (PSEN1). 1 key finding →
Processing of speech is obligatory. Thus, during normal speech comprehension, the listener is aware of the overall meaning of the speaker's utterance without the need to direct attention to individual linguistic and paralinguistic (intonational, prosodic, etc.) features contained within the speech signal. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2003-01-01
Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) is a behaviorally focal dementia syndrome with deterioration of language functions but relative preservation of other cognitive domains for at least the first two years of disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Brain research·2003-05-01
beta-Amyloid(1-42) (A beta 42), a major component of amyloid plaques, accumulates within pyramidal neurons in the brains of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Down syndrome. 3 key findings →
Cholinesterase inhibitors with additional nicotinic activity, such as galantamine, may be useful in PD patients with dementia (PDD) since stimulation of nicotinic receptors may prevent the down-regulation that is likely to accompany cholinesterase inhibition and facilitate dopamine release in the striatum. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2003-03-01
We examined the associations of postmortem neocortical immunoreactivities for microglia, astrocytes, Abeta and Tau with cognitive changes in clinically characterized subjects with pathological diagnoses (CERAD classification) of definite AD (9), possible AD (15) and age-matched controls (11). 4 key findings →
We recently described the cloning of murine triggering receptor expressed by myeloid cells (TREM) 2, a single Ig domain DNAX adaptor protein 12-associated receptor expressed by cells of the myeloid lineage.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2003-07-01
Plasma Abeta measures increase with age, but, in contrast to reports on familial AD, plasma Abeta measures were neither sensitive nor specific for the clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or sporadic AD. 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.