Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

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.

As resident immune cells of the brain, microglia serve pivotal roles in regulating neuronal function under both physiological and pathological conditions, including aging and the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease, Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The presenilin genes (PSEN1 and PSEN2) are mainly responsible for causing early-onset familial Alzheimer's disease, harboring ~300 causative mutations, and representing ~90% of all mutations associated with a very aggressive disease form. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be either sporadic or familial, and familial forms of AD accounts for only 5% of the cases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

An Alternative View of Familial Alzheimer's Disease Genetics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2023

Probabilistic and parsimony-based arguments regarding available genetics data are used to propose that Hardy and Higgin's amyloid cascade hypothesis is valid but is commonly interpreted too narrowly to support, incorrectly, the primacy of the amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) in driving Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common senile neurodegenerative disease characterized by progressive cognitive dysfunction, psychological and behavioral abnormalities, and impaired ability of activities of daily living. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We studied small vessel disease (SVD) pathology in Familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD) subjects carrying the presenilin 1 (PSEN1) p.Glu280Ala mutation in comparison to those with sporadic Alzheimer's disease (SAD) as a positive control for Alzheimer's pathology and Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) bearing different NOTCH3 mutations, as positive controls for SVD pathology. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Presenilin 1 (PSEN1) is a part of the gamma secretase complex with several interacting substrates, including amyloid precursor protein (APP), Notch, adhesion proteins and beta catenin. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Variable expression of familial Alzheimer disease associated with presenilin 2 mutation M239I

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neurology 2000-05-23

In a family with autopsy-confirmed Alzheimer disease, the authors found a mutation in the presenilin 2 (PS2) gene (PSEN2) that predicts a methionine-to-isoleucine change at PS2 residue 239 (M239I), at which a change to valine was known in another family. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A genetically modified minipig model for Alzheimer's disease with SORL1 haploinsufficiency

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Cell reports. Medicine 2022-09-12

The established causal genes in Alzheimer's disease (AD), APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2, are functionally characterized using biomarkers, capturing an in vivo profile reflecting the disease's initial preclinical phase. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Developing a Gene Therapy for the Treatment of Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Human gene therapy 2023-10

Autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) is a rare early-onset form of Alzheimer's disease, caused by dominant mutations in one of three genes: presenilin 1, presenilin 2, and amyloid β precursor protein (APP). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hereditary dementia with intracerebral hemorrhages and cerebral amyloid angiopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neurology 2004-07-27

Neuropathologic examination revealed Alzheimer-type changes with Abeta in neuritic plaques and vessel walls, but the cognitive profile of the patients differed from that in AD, as the visuoconstructive functions and verbal fluency were well preserved even in the moderate stage of the disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed