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
29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 5,026–5,050 of 7,999 studies · tagged Brain Biology(page 202 of 320)· 29,380 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; 14,855 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.
The Niemann-Pick disease group is now divided into two distinct entities: (1) acid sphingomyelinase-deficient Niemann-Pick disease (ASM-deficient NPD) resulting from mutations in the SMPD1 gene and encompassing type A and type B as well as intermediate forms; (2) Niemann-Pick disease type C (NP-C) including also type D, resulting from mutations in either the NPC1 or the NPC2 gene. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Biophysical journal·2021-01-28
Formation of biomolecular condensates through liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) has emerged as a pervasive principle in cell biology, allowing compartmentalization and spatiotemporal regulation of dynamic cellular processes. 1 key finding →
The advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy has prolonged the life expectancy of HIV patients and decreased the number of adults who progress to AIDS and HIV-associated dementia. 1 key finding →
Regardless of the dementia stage, many nursing home residents develop serious clinical complications and symptoms in the last phase of life, posing major challenges to the provision of optimum end-of-life care. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2005-06-01
The cornu ammonis 1 region of the hippocampus (CA1) sector of hippocampus is vulnerable to both Alzheimer's disease (AD)-type neurofibrillary degeneration and anoxia-ischemia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·1997-02-01
Early outcome measures of experimental traumatic brain injury (TBI) are useful for characterizing the traumatic severity as well as for clarifying the pathomechanisms underlying patterns of neuronal vulnerability. 3 key findings →
High-resolution magnetic resonance microscopy (MRM) was used to determine regional brain volumetric changes in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Neurogenesis in the hippocampus occurs throughout life in a wide range of species and could be associated with hippocampus-dependent learning and memory. 3 key findings →
Delusional misidentification and hallucinations in the early stages of dementia may improve differentiation between patients with dementia with Lewy bodies and those with Alzheimer's disease and have important treatment implications. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2012-04-22
The effects of applying clinical versus neuropathological diagnosis and the inclusion of cases with coincident neuropathological diagnoses have not been assessed specifically when studying cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker classification cutoffs for patients with neurodegenerative diseases that cause dementia. 3 key findings →
Further studies will refine this model and enable the use of biomarkers studied in ADNI clinically and in disease-modifying therapeutic trials. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2015-09-09
A critical link between amyloid-beta (Aβ) and hypoxia has been demonstrated in in vitro and animal studies but has not yet been proven in humans. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Neuron·2001-06-01
Inhibition of neocortical beta-amyloid (Abeta) accumulation may be essential in an effective therapeutic intervention for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·PloS one·2008-08-13
However, male 3xTg-AD mice demonstrated a further reduction in the production of new neurones from 9 months of age (73% decrease) and a complete depletion at 12 months, when compared to controls. 4 key findings →
1. beta-Amyloid peptide (A beta), a 39 -- 43 amino acid peptide, is believed to induce oxidative stress and inflammation in the brain, which are postulated to play important roles in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
10 of the 7,975 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%),
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 (3.5% 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.