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 54 studies published 1989(page 1 of 3)· 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 68 out of 100.·Neurology·1989-09-01
The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) has developed brief, comprehensive, and reliable batteries of clinical and neuropsychological tests for assessment of patients with the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1989-04-01
We have prospectively followed over a 5-year period 434 volunteers who were at intake ambulatory, functional, presumably nondemented, and between 75 and 85 years of age. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA·1989-04-01
We conducted a case-control study in 100 cases who had Alzheimer's-type dementia and 100 age-, sex-, and education-matched, nondemented controls to evaluate the hypothesis that hearing impairment contributes to cognitive dysfunction in older adults. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100.·JAMA·1989-12-01
To determine if the risk of hip fracture difference between persons receiving benzodiazepines with long (greater than or equal to 24 hours) or short (less than 24 hours) elimination half-lives, we conducted a nested case-control study among residents of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan who were 65 years of age and older. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Nature·1989-03-01
Gerstmann-Sträussler syndrome is a rare familial neurodegenerative condition that is vertically transmitted, in an apparently autosomal dominant way. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100.·Neurology·1989-06-01
When a patient with cancer develops a brain metastasis, death is usually imminent, but aggressive treatment in some patients with limited or no systemic disease yields long-term survival. 2 key findings →
The relationship of microglia and astrocytes to deposits of beta-amyloid protein (BAP) was studied in Alzheimer's disease by immunohistochemistry. 4 key findings →
Interleukin 1, an immune response-generated cytokine that stimulates astrocyte proliferation and reactivity (astrogliosis), was present in up to 30 times as many glial cells in tissue sections of brain from patients with Down syndrome and Alzheimer disease compared with age-matched control subjects. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Brain research·1989-01-01
The intraneuronal accumulation of paired helical filaments in the form of neurofibrillary tangles is one hallmark of the brain pathology in Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
The 4.2-kilodalton (kDa) polypeptide associated with the cerebral amyloid deposits of Alzheimer's disease (AD) derives from a much larger protein that is encoded by a gene on chromosome 21. 4 key findings →
Involvement of the immune system in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease was demonstrated in two ways: by the attachment of complement proteins to diseased tissue, and by the activation of cells associated with the immune system. 1 key finding →
In a study of 52 individuals belonging to 35 species or subspecies of passerine birds it was shown that the volume of the hippocampal complex relative to brain and body size is significantly larger in species that store food than in species that do not. 2 key findings →
The form and distribution of senile plaques (SP) and neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) has been examined in the brains of 13 patients with Down's syndrome (DS), aged less than or equal to 50 years, using immunocytochemical and silver staining procedures. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Brain research·1989-01-01
Activity of the free radical scavenging enzyme, superoxide dismutase (SOD-1), was determined in fibroblast cell lines derived from familial Alzheimer's patients, trisomy 21 patients and normal controls. 2 key findings →
The high prevalence of mental disorders such as depression and dementia in institutionalized elderly patients warrants screening for psychiatric diagnosis in patients newly admitted to long-term care facilities. 4 key findings →
The aim of this study was to test whether there is an excess of dementia of Alzheimer type (DAT) cases in Down syndrome (DS) relatives. 1 key finding →
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.