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 4,876–4,900 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 196 of 440)· 27,380 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
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.
Over the past decade, a surge of evidence has documented various pathological processes in the retina of patients suffering from mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and other neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →
In cross-section and longitudinally, our results show that evaluations of the P-tau231 level are highly correlated with reductions in the MRI hippocampal volume and by using CSF and MRI measures together one improves the separation of NL and MCI. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2011-01-27
This article introduces a hypometabolic convergence index (HCI) for the assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD); compares it to other biological, cognitive and clinical measures; and demonstrates its promise to predict clinical decline in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients using data from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2020-10-19
The dynamics of the resting brain exhibit transitions between a small number of discrete networks, each remaining stable for tens to hundreds of milliseconds. 2 key findings →
Executive predominant AD may reflect an alternative underlying pathophysiology related to genetic status, reflected in more prominent pathological alterations in frontoparietal regions subserving executive function. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·PloS one·2013-01-24
The pattern of regional decreased cortical thickness that relates to cognitive deterioration is present in PD-MCI patients, involving areas that play a central role in the storage of prior experiences, integration of external perceptions, and semantic processing. 2 key findings →
This article presents recommendations, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, for the clinical application of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β 1-42 , tau, and phosphorylated tau in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2011-03-23
Computational anatomy methods are now widely used in clinical neuroimaging to map the profile of disease effects on the brain and its clinical correlates. 1 key finding →
The amyloid hypothesis has yielded a series of well-validated candidate drug targets with potential for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Like acetylcholinesterase, butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) inactivates the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh) and is hence a viable therapeutic target in Alzheimer's disease, which is characterized by a cholinergic deficit. 4 key findings →
Calcium-activated neutral proteinases (CANPs or calpains) are believed to be key enzymes in intracellular signaling cascades and potential mediators of calcium-induced neuronal degeneration. 4 key findings →
The R47H variant of the Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) significantly increases the risk for late onset Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Cells·2020-07-17
The pro-inflammatory immune response driven by microglia is a key contributor to the pathogenesis of several neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) gene is a recently identified susceptibility gene for Alzheimer's disease (AD), as its low-frequency variants increase the risk of this disease with an odds ratio similar to that of an APOE ɛ4 allele. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100.·Journal of hepatology·2022-06-21
& aims Previous single-cell RNA-sequencing analyses have shown that Trem2-expressing macrophages are present in the liver during obesity, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and cirrhosis. 4 key findings →
Genome-wide association studies have reported that, amongst other microglial genes, variants in TREM2 can profoundly increase the incidence of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 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.