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
30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 3,576–3,600 of 8,338 studies · tagged Brain Biology(page 144 of 334)· 30,180 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; 15,654 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.
A large body of clinical and nonclinical evidence supports the role of neurotoxic soluble beta amyloid (amyloid, Aβ) oligomers as upstream pathogenic drivers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative old age disease that is complex, multifactorial, unalterable, and progressive in nature. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·mAbs·2023-01-01
There are few treatments that slow neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and while therapeutic antibodies are being investigated in clinical trials for AD treatment, their access to the central nervous system is restricted by the blood-brain barrier. 1 key finding →
We identify Clu as an astrocyte-derived synaptogenic and anti-amyloid factor; the combination of these activities may influence the progression of late-onset AD. 2 key findings →
Our study establishes a connection between Aβ antibodies engaged at CAA deposits, the activation of perivascular macrophages, and the upregulation of genes involved in vascular permeability. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Cells·2023-12-14
Amyloid beta (Aβ) deposition within the brain vasculature is an early hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which triggers loss of brain vascular smooth muscle cells (BVSMCs) in cerebral arteries, via poorly understood mechanisms, altering cerebral blood flow, brain waste clearance, and promoting cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Phosphorylation is one of the most prevalent post-translational modifications found in aggregated tau isolated from Alzheimer's disease (AD) patient brains. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Autophagy·2021-02-26
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are two clinically distinct classes of neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2011-10-28
In sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD), neurofibrillary lesion formation is preceded by extensive post-translational modification of the microtubule associated protein tau. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition characterized by tau pathology and accumulations of neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) along with amyloid-beta (Aβ). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2023-06-01
Extensive studies indicate that β-amyloid (Aβ) aggregation is pivotal for Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression; however, cumulative evidence suggests that Aβ itself is not sufficient to trigger AD-associated degeneration, and whether other additional pathological factors drive AD pathogenesis remains unclear. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Molecular metabolism·2021-02-06
We revealed GLP-1's capacity to regulate astrocytic glycolysis, providing mechanistic insight into one of its neuroprotective roles in AD and support for the feasibility of energy regulation treatments for AD. 3 key findings →
Since type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and both have the same pathogenesis (e.g., insulin resistance), drugs used to treat T2DM have been gradually found to reduce the progression of AD in AD models. 5 key findings →
Human Islet amyloid polypeptide (hIAPP) from pancreatic β cells in the islet of Langerhans has different physiological functions including inhibiting the release of insulin and glucagon. 2 key findings →
10 of the 8,313 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.