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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 5,676–5,700 of 6,987 studies · tagged Brain Biology(page 228 of 280)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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.
Tauopathies, characterized by neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) of phosphorylated tau proteins, are a group of neurodegenerative diseases, including frontotemporal dementia and both sporadic and familial Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuroreport·1999-02-01
We report a Japanese family with early onset hereditary frontotemporal dementia and a novel missense mutation (Ser305Asn) in the tau gene. 1 key finding →
Tau protein in a hyperphosphorylated state makes up the intracellular inclusions of several neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and cases of frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Seminars in neurology·2013-09-01
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative cause of dementia and is responsible for significant individual morbidity and mortality, and economic impact on the health care system. 1 key finding →
Neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), which are composed of hyperphosphorylated and ubiquitylated tau, are exhibited at regions where neuronal loss occurs in neurodegenerative diseases; however, the mechanisms of NFT formation remain unknown. 2 key findings →
We found that these brain ApoE knock-out (bEKO) mice had synaptic loss and dysfunction similar to that of ApoE KO mice; however, the bEKO mice did not have the learning and memory impairment observed in ApoE KO mice. 5 key findings →
Growing evidence suggests that soluble Aβ species can drive Alzheimer disease (AD) pathogenesis by inducing a cascade of events including tau hyperphosphorylation, proteasome impairment, and synaptic dysfunction. 1 key finding →
Although clinically distinct diseases, tauopathies and synucleinopathies share a common genesis and mechanisms, leading to overlapping degenerative changes within neurons. 5 key findings →
Soluble oligomeric aggregates of the amyloid-beta (A beta) peptide are believed to be the most neurotoxic A beta species affecting the brain in Alzheimer disease (AD), a terminal neurodegenerative disorder involving severe cognitive decline underscored by initial synaptic dysfunction and later extensive neuronal death in the CNS. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuropharmacology·2014-05-29
In a variety of neurodegenerative tauopathies including Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia and some types of Parkinson's disease, tau protein is abnormally hyperphosphorylated by several kinases and eventually aggregates to form neurofibrillary tangles, a neurotoxic pathological characteristic that closely correlates with cognitive impairments. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Science signaling·2015-07-07
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a currently incurable neurodegenerative disorder and is the most common form of dementia in people over the age of 65 years. 3 key findings →
Representing the most common cause of dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) has dramatically impacted the neurological and economic health of our society. 1 key finding →
Tau pathology is a hallmark of many neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia with Parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17). 5 key findings →
Tauopathies, including Alzheimer's disease, are a group of neurodegenerative diseases characterized by abnormal tau hyperphosphorylation that leads to formation of neurofibrillary tangles. 2 key findings →
The risk for dementia, a major contributor to incapacitation and institutionalization, rises rapidly as we age, doubling every 5 y after age 65. 1 key finding →
The term oligomeropathies defines the neurodegenerative disorders associated with protein misfolding, where small soluble aggregates (oligomers 4-200 KDa) are the cause of neuronal dysfunction and are responsible for spreading the pathology. 3 key findings →
10 of the 6,970 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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.