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 1,926–1,950 of 6,987 studies · tagged Brain Biology(page 78 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.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder marked by cognitive decline and functional impairment, primarily driven by the accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and tau tangles. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature communications·2026-06-09
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have shown promise in preclinical models of neurodegeneration, with emerging evidence suggesting these effects may be driven by modulation of neuroinflammation. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are the two commonest causes of dementia in older adults and frequently coexist as mixed neurodegenerative-cerebrovascular pathology. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature communications·2026-01-22
Chlamydia pneumoniae is an intracellular bacterium implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but its role in retinal pathology and disease progression is unclear. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), is a chronic age-related progressive neurodegenerative disorder, characterized by neuroinflammation and extracellular aggregation of Aβ peptide. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2026-06-03
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia, is characterized by early synaptic dysfunction that precedes overt cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nutrients·2026-07-29
Cognitive decline is closely associated with biological aging and with interconnected processes, including chronic low-grade inflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and cellular senescence. 2 key findings →
Neuropathological studies have shown that the typical neurofibrillary pathology of hyperphosphorylated tau protein in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) preferentially affects specific brain regions whereas others remain relatively spared. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Annals of Neurology·2001-01-01
We have defined a new paraneoplastic immunoglobulin G (IgG) autoantibody specific for CRMP-5, a previously unknown 62-kd neuronal cytoplasmic protein of the collapsin response-mediator family. 2 key findings →
The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened three separate work groups in 2011 and single work groups in 2012 and 2018 to create recommendations for the diagnosis and characterization of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2024-01-30
The prevalence of epilepsy is increased among Alzheimer's Disease (AD) patients and cognitive impairment is common among people with epilepsy. 4 key findings →
We underline the potential of next-generation biomarker identification tools to detect novel proteomic features that also incorporate established biomarkers. 4 key findings →
Our findings provide evidence that greater concentrations of KP metabolites are associated longitudinally over two years with greater biomarker evidence of neurofibrillary tau pathology (pTau-181), neuroinflammation (GFAP), and neurodegeneration (NfL), suggesting that dysregulated KP metabolism may play a role in ADRD pathogenesis. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature communications·2025-07-10
Synaptic loss strongly correlates with cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet the mechanism linking its origin and pattern remain unclear. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive irreversible neurodegenerative disorder that represents a major global public health concern. 1 key finding →
Our data indicate that neuroinflammation is linked to the symptomatic phase of ALS/FTD and shows a similar pattern in sporadic and genetic cases. 3 key findings →
The combination of the CSF biomarkers T-tau, Aβ40 and MCP-1 separates iNPH from cognitive and movement disorders with good diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 1 key finding →
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.