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 1–25 of 1,426 studies scoring ≤ 29 out of 100 (page 1 of 58)· 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 29 out of 100.·Prion·2012-01-01
In Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) and Alzheimer disease (AD) both misfolding and aggregation of specific proteins represent key features. 2 key findings →
A double blind, comparative, parallel and randomized clinical trial was used for evaluation of two nootropics with anti-aging actions: Meclofenoxate (MF) and Antagonic-Stress (AS). 3 key findings →
Thirty-four unique-sequence microclones were isolated from a previously described microdissection library of human chromosome 21 and were regionally mapped using a cell hybrid mapping panel which consists of six cell hybrids and divides chromosome 21 into eight regions. 3 key findings →
Recent data have allowed speculating that amyloid Aβ induces apoptosis via opening type-1 VDAC in cell membranes of hypo-metabolic neurons, a process most likely running over life time--as leaves fall from trees in the tropics--and ending in Alzheimer's disease whenever critical brain regions are affected. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·1999-11-01
Tau-like protein levels from 40 Down syndrome (DS) persons (31-70 years old), 40 non-DS age-matched normal controls, 18 non-DS mentally retarded (MR) persons (26-91 years old), 25 probable Alzheimer disease (AD) patients (55-99 years old) and 24 non-demented elderly controls (54-79 years old) were measured using a sandwich enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. 1 key finding →
Despite frequent neuropathological findings, the prevalence of dementia in people with Down syndrome is thought to be no higher than in the general population. 5 key findings →
Patients with Down syndrome (human trisomy 21) develop neuropathological and cholinergic functional defects characteristic of Alzheimer's disease, which has been attributed to the location of the Alzheimer beta-amyloid precursor protein on chromosome 21. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·PloS one·2020-06-23
In humans, GART [phosphoribosylglycinamide formyltransferase (EC 2.1.2.2) / phosphoribosylglycinamide synthetase (EC 6.3.4.13) / phosphoribosylaminoimidazole synthetase (EC 6.3.3.1)] is a trifunctional protein which catalyzes the second, third, and fifth reactions of the ten step de novo purine synthesis (DNPS) pathway. 4 key findings →
Down syndrome, as a phenotypic result of trisomy 21, is a complex condition with a set of over 30 phenotypic features, which manifest themselves with varying frequencies among affected individuals. 3 key findings →
Excess salt intake is one of the relevant dietary determinants of elevated blood pressure and hypertension, with a direct impact on cardiovascular risk. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Age and Ageing·2020-02-01
Future direction of this work focuses on system wide improvements to promote multi-organisational interdisciplinary healthcare and social services professionals work in care homes. 2 key findings →
Leveraging real-world data to better understand health care utilization patterns prior to and after incident AD diagnosis may help inform the clinical management of the disease. 1 key finding →
As states work to maximize limited resources while improving population outcomes, the strategic alignment of planning processes represents a significant opportunity. 4 key findings →
Analysis of the use of hypnotic medication versus CBT for insomnia using an established model for ethical medical decision making leads to the conclusion that hypnotics are not appropriate as the initial treatment in cases of chronic insomnia. 4 key findings →
MemoryCare, in its 13th year of operation in Asheville, NC, is an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to providing medical care to older adults with cognitive impairment inclusive of a case management component that provides support and education to their families and caregivers. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
The National Dementia Care Collaborative (NDCC) aims to improve access to and successful implementation of evidence-based comprehensive dementia care. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2021-12-01
Medicare enrollment among people with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) has reached an all-time high with about 12% of beneficiaries having an ADRD diagnosis. 5 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.