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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 4,701–4,725 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 189 of 440)· 27,380 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; 12,859 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.
Our results support the utility of CSF VEC as a marker of endothelial injury in AD and highlight the importance of endothelial injury as an early pathology that contributes to cognitive impairment in even the earliest preclinical stages. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·EBioMedicine·2025-04-15
Comparing clinical stages, CSF PDGFRβ levels were increased at the MCI stage (Cohen's d = 0.55 [CI 95% 0.066, 1.0], P = 0.025) compared with NC. 3 key findings →
Our findings suggest that microglial and astrocyte reactivity, measured through fluid biomarkers, occur early and impact the amyloid cascade on the preclinical Alzheimer´s continuum. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Neurology. Genetics·2024-01-10
We found that ML-PRS approaches improved upon standard PRS for prediction of AD endophenotypes, partly related to improved accounting for nonlinear effects of genetic susceptibility alleles. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2023-10-25
Across 3 study samples, combining the functional connectome and molecular properties substantially enhanced the explanatory power compared to single modalities, providing a valuable tool to explain regional susceptibility to tau deposition in AD. 3 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype is the major genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD); the ε4 allele increases risk and the ε2 allele is protective. 5 key findings →
The most common and distinctive feature for all pathologies associated with primary progressive aphasia was the asymmetric prominence of atrophy, neuronal loss, and disease-specific proteinopathy in the language-dominant (mostly left) hemisphere. 2 key findings →
Suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology (SNAP) is a biomarker-based concept that applies to individuals with normal levels of amyloid-β biomarkers in the brain, but in whom biomarkers of neurodegeneration are abnormal. 1 key finding →
Although it is clear that apoE plays an important role in the genetics of late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD), evidence exists that additional genes may play a role in AD, and estimates of the total contribution of apoE to the variance in onset of AD vary widely. 2 key findings →
For the past three decades, apolipoprotein E (APOE) has been known as the single greatest genetic modulator of sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) risk, influencing both the average age of onset and the lifetime risk of developing AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2017-07-14
We performed whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing in 927 late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) cases, 852 early-onset AD (EOAD) cases, and 1273 controls from France. 4 key findings →
These new knock-in strains offer a novel and dynamic tool to study the role of APOE in AD pathogenesis in a spatially and temporally controlled manner. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2017-03-01
High-dose DHA supplementation in APOE4 carriers before the onset of AD dementia can be a promising approach to decrease the incidence of AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2019-07-01
Elevated LDL-C levels were associated with higher probability of having EOAD, and EOAD cases were enriched for rare coding variants in APOB, which codes for the major protein of LDL-C. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Neurology·2018-10-10
Our results indicate that assessing regional changes in amyloid, particularly in posterior cortical regions, can aid in the early detection of subclinical amyloid-related decline in episodic memory as early as middle age. 2 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.
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 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.