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 6,326–6,350 of 8,338 studies · tagged Brain Biology(page 254 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.
The aberrant metabolism of amyloid-β protein (Aβ) in the human brain has been implicated in the etiology of Alzheimer disease (AD). γ-Secretase is the enzyme that generates various forms of Aβ, such as Aβ40 and Aβ42, the latter being an aggregation-prone toxic peptide that is involved in the pathogenesis of AD. 4 key findings →
S100B is typically elevated in AD cases; however, the increased levels in African Americans here may be indicative of increased severity in specific populations. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Neuroscience research·2019-01-12
The search for a blood-based biomarker that identifies Alzheimer's disease (AD) and can replace current invasive and expensive diagnostic tests, continues. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Autophagy·2019-06-28
Here, we found that overexpression of human wild-type full-length MAPT, which models MAPT pathologies as seen in sporadic AD patients, induced autophagy deficits via repression of autophagosome-lysosome fusion leading to significantly increased LC3 (microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3)-II and SQSTM1/p62 (sequestosome 1) protein levels with autophagosome accumulation. 4 key findings →
Dysfunction of cell bioenergetics is a common feature of neurodegenerative diseases, the most common of which is Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Cell reports·2020-09-01
Gene and protein expression data provide useful resources for understanding brain function, but little is known about the lipid composition of the brain. 5 key findings →
None of the proposed mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease (AD) fully explains the distribution patterns of the neuropathological changes at the cellular and regional levels, and their clinical correlates. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Cell systems·2017-03-18
Human age-associated traits, such as cognitive decline, can be highly variable across the population, with some individuals exhibiting traits that are not expected at a given chronological age. 3 key findings →
The existing large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) datasets provide strong support for investigating the mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by applying multiple methods of pathway analysis. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Brain research·2018-11-29
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the classical hallmarks of Aβ-deposition and tau-pathology that are thought to ultimately lead to synapse and neuron loss. 5 key findings →
Glycoprotein non-metastatic melanoma protein B (GPNMB) is a type I transmembrane glycoprotein first identified in low-metastatic human melanoma cell lines as a regulator of tumor growth. 3 key findings →
The downregulation of TREM2 exacerbated surgery-induced cognitive deficits and exaggerated neuroinflammatory responses in this rodent model. 2 key findings →
Mutation of Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) impairs the response of microglia to amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD), although the mechanism governing TREM2-regulated microglia recruitment to Aβ plaques remains unresolved. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Food & function·2020-02-01
Alzheimer's disease, characterized by neuroinflammation and beta-amyloid protein plaques, is a memory-threatening neurodegenerative disease with no effective treatment. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is age-related neurodegenerative disorder recognized by a steadily gradual cognitive decline that has devastating personal and socioeconomic implications. 2 key findings →
Macrophage autophagy defect is closely related to the progression of atherosclerosis (AS) and is regulated by the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cell 2 (TREM2). 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.