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 480 studies published 2005(page 8 of 20)· 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 50 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2005-09-01
From the modest but important breakthroughs in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), diagnostic focus has increasingly shifted to the accurate detection of the earliest phase of the illness. 1 key finding →
Human genetic data have associated angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) with Alzheimer disease (AD), and purified ACE has been reported to cleave synthetic amyloid beta-protein (Abeta) in vitro. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2005-06-13
Alzheimer disease (AD) is characterized neuropathologically by intracellular neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) and of extracellular senile plaques (SP), the central core of which is amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) derived from amyloid precursor protein (APP), a transmembrane protein. 4 key findings →
The findings support the pathological evidence that underlying variations in MAPT could contribute to disease pathogenesis by subtle effects on gene expression and/or splicing. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Brain·2005-03-17
Neurodegeneration in Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) affect cortical and subcortical networks involved in saccade generation. 5 key findings →
We examined how an Alzheimer disease (AD) family history assessment as compared to a risk assessment incorporating the absence of a disease-associated susceptibility allele affected risk perception among adult children with a family history of AD. 3 key findings →
A chart-based instrument for delirium, which should be useful for patient safety and quality-improvement programs in older persons, was validated. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2005-07-01
This potential benefit must be balanced against the possibility that ventricular volumes may be more likely to be affected by factors other than neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
Epidemiological studies suggest that individuals with greater education or more cognitively demanding occupations have diminished risk of developing dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Biological psychiatry·2005-08-01
Both abnormal initiation/perseveration and abnormal Stroop Color-Word scores were associated with an unfavorable response of geriatric depression to citalopram. 1 key finding →
Our results validate the PHQ-9 and revalidate the BDI against a gold-standard measure for depressive disorders in the dialysis population. 4 key findings →
Just as neuronal activity is essential to normal brain function, microtubule-associated protein tau appears to be critical to normal neuronal activity in the mammalian brain, especially in the evolutionary most advanced species, the homo sapiens. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neuron·2005-06-01
Abnormal folding of alpha-synuclein (alpha-syn) is thought to lead to neurodegeneration and the characteristic symptoms of Lewy body disease (LBD). 4 key findings →
Transgenic mice overexpressing the P301L mutant human tau protein exhibit an accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau and develop neurofibrillary tangles. 5 key findings →
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is critical for the function and survival of neurons that degenerate in the late stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2005-11-01
These data provide evidence for clinical and functional heterogeneity among subjects with aMCI and suggest that 18FDG-PET findings combined with memory scores may be useful in predicting short-term conversion to AD. 3 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.