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 7,526–7,550 of 7,999 studies · tagged Brain Biology(page 302 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.
Our work suggests an anti-inflammatory effect of quercetin in the CA1 hippocampal region of aged triple transgenic Alzheimer's disease mice. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·1988-03-01
Studies were undertaken to assess the extent to which messenger RNA prepared from the postmortem Alzheimer's disease (AD) brain can be used for the successful preparation of a recombinant cDNA library. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Stem cell reports·2021-12-16
The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), while the APOE2 allele is protective. 1 key finding →
These observations: (i) support the hypothesis of transneuronal spread of neurofibrillary changes from the DR to its interconnected cortical brain areas; and (ii) indicate that the supratrochlear subnucleus of the DR is affected by neurofibrillary changes before the transentorhinal cortex during the disease process underlying AD. 2 key findings →
The brains of individuals with Down's syndrome in their 40's and 50's begin to develop changes that are otherwise seen only in patients with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Two groups of subjects, 14 young (ages 20 to 31 years) and 14 adults (ages 32 to 54 years), both groups with Down Syndrome, were examined on a matching and naming olfactory task. 1 key finding →
The humble success of current therapeutic strategies along with the lack of basic knowledge of the brain disease mechanisms calls for alternatives that benefit patients in the present moment. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Bioengineered bugs·2012-01-01
Human trisomy 21 is the most frequent live-born human aneuploidy and causes a constellation of disease phenotypes classified as Down syndrome, which include heart defects, myeloproliferative disorder, cognitive disabilities and Alzheimer-type neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Brain research·1995-12-01
S100 beta protein, a member of a Ca(2+)-binding protein family present primarily in the nervous system, affects the survival and differentiation of both neurons and glia cells. 2 key findings →
It has been increasingly recognized that the pathological progress of Alzheimer´s disease (AD) is connected to metabolic function and inflammation. 4 key findings →
These findings suggest that sexual differentiation in early life has modest effects on adult development of AD in females, a relationship that appeared stronger in the context of APOE4 . 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Archiv der Pharmazie·2026-03-01
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive and complicated neurodegenerative disorder that mostly affects the elderly and is characterized by memory loss, cognitive dysfunction, accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and cholinergic deficits. 1 key finding →
Trans-active response DNA-binding protein-43 (TDP-43) is the major pathological protein in motor neuron disease and TDP-43 pathology has been described in the brains of up to 50% of patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →
It is now widely accepted that the development of neurodegenerative diseases depends on and affects many pathological processes, both in the brain and the periphery. 1 key finding →
CAA may be encountered as an isolated pathology or with Alzheimer disease and has been demonstrated to be associated with an increased risk of seizures. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-04-07
This report highlights a case of relapsing remitting rapidly progressive dementia due to cerebral amyloid angiopathy-related inflammation (CAA-ri), focusing on the diagnostic challenges and the dramatic response to corticosteroid treatment. 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.