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
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 101–125 of 206 studies scoring ≥ 67 out of 100 · tagged Brain Biology(page 5 of 9)· 31,780 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
From OpenAlex; 17,251 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.
Syn positivity (synSAA+) co-occurred with T (in synSAA+ vs. synSAA-, 36% vs. 20% T+; Pp = 0.011) and with cognitive impairment (10% vs. 7% mild cognitive impairment; 10% vs. 0% dementia; p = 0.00050). synSAA+ participants' cognitive performance declined ≈ 40% faster than synSAA- for Digit Symbol Substitution, but not other tests. 4 key findings →
Modulating deposition of Aβ-containing plaques in the brain may be beneficial in treating Alzheimer's disease. β-site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) inhibitors have been shown to reduce Aβ in plasma and CSF in healthy volunteers. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Nature communications·2022-08-20
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), younger symptom onset is associated with accelerated disease progression and tau spreading, yet the mechanisms underlying faster disease manifestation are unknown. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Nature communications·2024-01-03
In Alzheimer's disease, amyloid-beta (Aβ) triggers the trans-synaptic spread of tau pathology, and aberrant synaptic activity has been shown to promote tau spreading. 2 key findings →
Neuropathology and neuroimaging studies have identified several subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (AD): hippocampal sparing AD, typical AD, and limbic predominant AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Neurology and therapy·2023-10-09
Passive immunotherapy in AD is largely dominated by anti-amyloid antibodies, which are more numerous and more advanced in the pipeline. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2019-10-07
Parietal cortex RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data were generated from individuals with and without Alzheimer disease (AD; n control = 13; n AD = 83) from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC). 3 key findings →
In older cognitively unimpaired individuals (≥50 years), widespread, age-related elevated tau signal was seen among those with normal or abnormal amyloid status as compared to younger cognitively unimpaired individuals (30-49 years). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA psychiatry·2017-03-01
There were 987 participants (290 from Vantaa 85+, 241 from the Cambridge City Over-75s Cohort, and 456 from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study) with neuropathologic data; mean (SD) age at death was 90 (6.4) years, including 682 women (69%). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-09-01
Pooled clinical and neuropathologic data from 3 prospective cohort studies indicate that TBI with LOC is associated with risk for Lewy body accumulation, progression of parkinsonism, and PD, but not dementia, AD, neuritic plaques, or neurofibrillary tangles. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Circulation research·2020-07-16
The diverse leukocyte infiltrate in atherosclerotic mouse aortas was recently analyzed in 9 single-cell RNA sequencing and 2 mass cytometry studies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Neurology·2015-11-04
We tested the hypothesis that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is related to Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia and decline in multiple cognitive systems in old age, independent of AD plaque and tangle pathology and other common age-related neuropathologies. 4 key findings →
A single traumatic brain injury is associated with an increased risk of dementia and, in a proportion of patients surviving a year or more from injury, the development of hallmark Alzheimer's disease-like pathologies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA Neurology·2025-06-09
Of 4467 participants who underwent 9208 longitudinal cognitive sessions, 2698 (60.4%) were female, and the mean age (SD) was 74.3 (9.2) years; 3213 were cognitively unimpaired, 972 had mild cognitive impairment, and 282 had AD dementia. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Genome medicine·2025-03-04
First, we mapped SVs across 81 AD risk loci and discovered 22 SVs in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with GWAS lead variants and directly associated with the phenotypes tested. 5 key findings →
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
Randomized / 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
Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%),
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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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.