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 531 studies published 2006(page 8 of 22)· 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.
Voluntary physical activity and exercise training can favorably influence brain plasticity by facilitating neurogenerative, neuroadaptive, and neuroprotective processes. 1 key finding →
Vascular risk factors for Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) have been evaluated; however, few studies have compared risks by dementia subtypes and sex. 1 key finding →
Cortical thickness is a more reliable measure of atrophy than volume due to the low variability in the cytoarchitectural structure of the grey matter. 4 key findings →
Transgenic mice carrying disease-linked forms of genes associated with Alzheimer disease often demonstrate deposition of the beta-amyloid as senile plaques and cerebral amyloid angiopathy. 4 key findings →
A Clinical Task Force, composed of clinical leaders from Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC), was convened by the National Institute on Aging to develop a uniform set of assessment procedures to characterize individuals with mild Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment in comparison with nondemented aging.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-05-01
The NBV significantly correlated with all clinical scores (Rankin, NIH Stroke Scale, Barthel, structured interview for the diagnosis of Alzheimer dementia and multi-infarct dementia, Mattis dementia rating scale) at both time points independently of age and sex. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2006-07-11
Statistical interdependencies between magnetoencephalographic signals recorded over different brain regions may reflect the functional connectivity of the resting-state networks. 5 key findings →
Deposition of iron in the brain is proposed to play a role in the pathophysiology of the normal aging process and neurodegenerative diseases. 2 key findings →
These data suggest that quality of life in dementia is complex, and that simple proxy substitutions of discrete measures such as cognition or function are likely to miss important factors. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-12-01
Subjects were 233 older Catholic clergy in the Religious Orders Study, who underwent detailed annual evaluations, including neuropsychological testing, and brain autopsy at time of death (mean age 86 years, 45% men). 2 key findings →
To determine which clinical feature(s) [among visual hallucinations (VH), extrapyramidal signs (EPS) and visuospatial impairment] in the earliest stages of disease best predicted a diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) at autopsy, first-visit data of 23 pathologically proven DLB and 94 Alzheimer's disease cases were compared. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-05-01
Rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is characterised by loss of muscular atonia and prominent motor behaviours during REM sleep. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2006-11-01
There are many reasons for reviewing the neurology of vitamin-B12 and folic-acid deficiencies together, including the intimate relation between the metabolism of the two vitamins, their morphologically indistinguishable megaloblastic anaemias, and their overlapping neuropsychiatric syndromes and neuropathology, including their related inborn errors of metabolism. 3 key findings →
Lewy bodies (LBs) are alpha-synuclein-immunoreactive neuronal inclusions with a predilection for specific cortical and subcortical regions, including the amygdala. 2 key findings →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was proposed as a nosological entity referring to elderly people with mild cognitive deficit but no dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Clinical therapeutics·2006-07-01
MCI involves more substantial cognitive and memory decline than normal aging and represents a significant risk factor for the development of dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2006-03-02
The impact of cognitive impairment on activities of daily living (ADL) is being used as a major criterion for differentiating between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. 4 key findings →
Cognitive impairment and late-life depression are associated with increased risk for subsequent dementia; however, investigations of these phenomena appear to be proceeding along separate tracks. 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.