Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

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.

The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. The American journal of psychiatry 1982-09-01

Cognitive decline associated with old age and consistent with the diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia is a unique clinical syndrome with characteristic phenomena and progression. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A New Clinical Scale for the Staging of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. The British Journal of Psychiatry 1982-06-01

Accurate clinical staging of dementia in older subjects has not previously been achieved despite the use of such methods as psychometric testing, behavioural rating, and various combinations of simpler psychometric and behavioural evaluations. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This preliminary report describes the development, reliability, and validity testing of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) designed specifically for rating depression in the elderly. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

To examine the possibility that senile dementia may be associated with a loss of noradrenergic neurons that innervate the cerebral cortex, we used a Quantimet 720 image analyzer to estimate the number of neurons in the nucleus locus ceruleus in elderly patients with the clinical diagnosis of senile dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

With a psychiatrist's standardized clinical diagnosis as the criterion, the 'Mini-Mental State' Examination (MMSE) was 87% sensitive and 82% specific in detecting dementia and delirium among hospital patients on a general medical ward. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometry was used to analyze the elemental content of neurofibrillary tangle (NFT)-bearing and NFT-free neurons within the Sommer's sector (H1 region) of the hippocampus in Guamanian Chamorros with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and parkinsonism-dementia and in neurologically normal controls. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Measurement of Functional Activities in Older Adults in the Community

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of Gerontology 1982-05-01

Two measures of social function designed for community studies of normal aging and mild senile dementia were evaluated in 195 older adults who underwent neurological, cognitive, and affective assessment. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Sleep, EEG and mental function changes in senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 1982-01-01

Sleep, EEG and mental function variables were studied in 44 subjects diagnosed as having probable senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type (SDAT) and 22 controls matched for age and minimal depression. 3 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Sleep and waking EEGs from 11 healthy nondemented elderly men and from ten inpatients for whom the diagnosis was probable senile dementia of Alzheimer's type (SDAT), were monitored in the subjects' typical home or ward environments or in the sleep laboratory, according to their customary sleep schedules. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The clinical features of 11 families containing 73 individuals with dominantly inherited cerebellar ataxia of late onset are described. 4 key findings →

Participants: 73 Evidence: low

Medically ill patients diagnosed at index admission as delirious, i.e., suffering cognitive decline and an altered state of consciousness, had higher fatality rates than demented, cognitively intact or depressed patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed