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 876–900 of 6,987 studies · tagged Brain Biology(page 36 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.
The goal of this study was to assess markers for barrier dysfunction in postmortem tissue samples from research participants who were either cognitively normal individuals (CNI) or diagnosed with AD at the time of autopsy and determine to what extent these markers are associated with AD neuropathologic changes (ADNC) and cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Cell·2024-04-05
Tauopathies are age-associated neurodegenerative diseases whose mechanistic underpinnings remain elusive, partially due to a lack of appropriate human models. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2017-04-01
In all 6 patients (3 women and 3 men; mean age 61.8 years), the underlying clinical phenotype was associated with the regional distribution of the [18F]AV-1451 signal. 4 key findings →
In cohort 1, PVEC increased the effect on AD-versus-HC discrimination from a Cohen d value of 1.68 to 2.0 for composite SUVRs and from 0.04 to 1.04 for mesial temporal cortex SUVRs. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2023-05-15
LBD/A+T+ and AD cases showed significantly increased CSF levels of synaptic and neuroaxonal biomarkers compared with LBD/A-T- and control subjects. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2023-11-10
Selected CSF biomarkers at presentation were associated with etiologic diagnoses and treatment responsiveness in patients with heterogeneous causes of RPD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-10-06
The findings suggest that permeability of the blood-brain barrier is linked to AD pathophysiology, contributes to cerebrovascular lesions observed on MRI, and is associated with neuroinflammation in middle age. 5 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (apoE), a plasma apolipoprotein that plays a central role in lipoprotein metabolism, is localized in the senile plaques, congophilic angiopathy, and neurofibrillary tangles of Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-05-01
These results strongly support the concept that synapse loss is a structural correlate involved very early in cognitive decline in mild Alzheimer disease (mAD) and supports mild cognitive impairment as a transitional stage between mAD and no cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Several heterozygous missense mutations in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) have recently been linked to risk for a number of neurological disorders including Alzheimer disease (AD), Parkinson disease, and frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Immunity·2022-08-16
The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer disease and a decreased risk of glaucoma, but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Neurology·2020-05-26
ApoE isoforms influence mitochondrial structure and function, which likely leads to alteration in oxidative stress, synapses, and cognitive function. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2013-05-01
Ventricular volume trajectory is more sensitive than total brain and hippocampal volume trajectories as a marker of accruing Alzheimer disease and vascular pathology in elderly individuals. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-03-01
We provide evidence that 2 common variants within the TREM locus are associated with pathological features of AD and aging-related cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100.·Functional neurology·1994-05-01
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a central nervous system disorder characterized by the presence of neurofibrillary tangles, neuritic plaques and dystrophic neurones in susceptible areas of the brain. 1 key finding →
The global prevalence of dementia is estimated to be as high as 24 million, and is predicted to double every 20 years through to 2040, leading to a costly burden of disease. 5 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.