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 2,226–2,250 of 3,123 studies · tagged Treatments(page 90 of 125)· 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.
This study was a retrospective analysis of administrative data (20% sample) of 15 996 Medicare Part D enrollees who received a DES in 2006 to 2007. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Journal of Neurology·2026-05-01
Although β-site APP-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) and secretase inhibitors did not achieve success in clinical trials because of mechanism-based toxicity and cognitive impairment, new monoclonal antibodies such as lecanemab and donanemab have shown high amyloid plaque clearance and reduced cognitive deterioration. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Molecules·2025-06-24
Alzheimer′s disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder that leads to memory loss and changes in mental and behavioral functions in elderly individuals. 4 key findings →
Despite substantial investment in biomedical and pharmaceutical research over the past two decades, the global prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) is still rising. 1 key finding →
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) encompasses a broad, clinically and neuropathologically diverse group of neurodegenerative disorders associated with changes in personality, behaviour, and/or language due to the progressive degeneration of the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain. 3 key findings →
Tau mutant cortical organoids showed altered mitochondrial function and gene expression related to neuronal development, with synaptic markers and neuronal activity reduction. 5 key findings →
In addition to the core clinical features of fluctuating cognition, visual hallucinations, and parkinsonism, individuals with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) frequently experience chronic and debilitating major depression. 2 key findings →
The repeated inability of Aβ therapies to pass clinical tests in sporadic AD points to the complexity of the disease and indicates that earlier or more interventions could be necessary. 5 key findings →
The first search utilized the following MeSH terms and keywords: ‘Plasma Exchange’, ‘Plasmapheresis’, ‘Therapeutic plasma exchange’, ‘Apheresis’, ‘Aβ’, ‘p-tau’, ‘Total-tau’, ‘Alzheimer's disease’, ‘Cognitive dysfunction’, ‘neurodegenerative diseases’, ‘centrifugation’, ‘membranous’, and ‘filtration’ in the Title/Abstract, yielding 146 results. 2 key findings →
In a cohort of 75 patients who completed Moneta's program (average age 73 ± 10, average MoCA score 20 ± 5), 59% had MCI and 33% had dementia. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most prevalent form of dementia, is pathologically defined by amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, synaptic loss, and progressive neuronal degeneration. 2 key findings →
Depression in Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia has become an increasingly recognized public health concern due to its high prevalence and substantial impact on patient outcomes. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Biomedicines·2025-12-26
Mixed dementia (MD), characterized by overlapping features of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD), represents the most prevalent form of late-life cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Vascular dementia (VaD) is a leading cause of cognitive decline and arises from heterogeneous cerebrovascular pathologies, most commonly cerebral small vessel disease and chronic cerebral hypoperfusion. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the formation of extracellular amyloid plaques containing the amyloid β-protein (Aβ) within the parenchyma of the brain. 4 key findings →
Investigations of apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, the major genetic risk modifier for Alzheimer's disease (AD), have yielded significant insights into the pathogenic mechanism. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive degenerative neurological disorder affecting nearly one in nine elderly people in the United States. 2 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (APOE) is the major cholesterol carrier in the brain, affecting various normal cellular processes including neuronal growth, repair and remodeling of membranes, synaptogenesis, clearance and degradation of amyloid β (Aβ) and neuroinflammation. 2 key findings →
10 of the 3,106 studies in this tag, 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.