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 6,701–6,725 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 269 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.
In this article, the challenges faced by several noted population studies for Alzheimer dementia in operationalizing current clinical diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been reviewed. 4 key findings →
The budgetary impacts are not insignificant but are small in comparison to the likely market price of any disease-modifying treatments or to the probable costs of missed or inaccurate diagnosis. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer disease (AD) and Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) are growing public health challenges globally affecting millions of older adults, necessitating concerted efforts to advance our understanding and management of these conditions. 5 key findings →
On achieving conformance, sites can justify a claim that brain amyloid burden reflected by the SUVR is measurable to a within-subject coefficient of variation of no more than 1.94% when the same radiopharmaceutical, scanner, acquisition, and analysis protocols are used. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2021-02-11
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25) and neurogranin (Ng) are recently described biomarkers for pre- and postsynaptic integrity known to be elevated in symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Autophagy·2024-07-01
Isolated forebrain synaptosomes, rather than total homogenates, from atg7 iKO mice demonstrated accumulation of synaptic proteins, suggesting that the synapse might be a vulnerable site for protein homeostasis disruption. 4 key findings →
Compared with non-PVE-corrected data, PVE-corrected data yielded significantly higher changes in regional and composite SUV ratio (SUVR) over time ( P = 0.0002 for composite SUVRs). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-08-18
Among 428 older autopsied persons (mean age at death = 91 years, 70% women) considered for anti-amyloid treatment eligibility assessment, 58% had MCI and 42% had mild-stage Alzheimer dementia. 5 key findings →
This study found that in preclinical AD, overweight and obesity were associated with better verbal memory in women, whereas obesity was associated with worse global cognition among men. 4 key findings →
Understanding how plasma tau biomarkers are influenced by co-pathologies and comorbidities is crucial for their accurate implementation. 3 key findings →
Neuroimaging features of early-onset AD in comparison to late-onset AD include greater frequency of hippocampal sparing and posterior neocortical atrophy, increased tau burden, and greater connectomic changes affecting frontoparietal networks rather than the default mode network. 5 key findings →
Advances in human genetics have implicated a growing number of genes in neurodegenerative diseases, providing insight into pathological processes. 5 key findings →
The cholesterol transporter ATP-binding cassette transporter A1 (ABCA1) moves lipids onto apolipoproteins including apolipoprotein E (apoE), which is the major cholesterol carrier in the brain and an established genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Recent studies indicate that impairments in two cognitive domains characterize the cognitive abnormalities that appear earliest in the course of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
The discovery that the epsilon 4 allele of the apolipoprotein E (apoE) gene is a putative risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD) in the general population has highlighted the role of genetic influences in this extremely common and disabling illness. 3 key findings →
Vascular risk factors, sleep disorders, and traumatic brain injury are associated with an increased risk of AD, while increased cognitive and physical activity throughout the lifespan reduce the risk of disease. 1 key finding →
Linkage studies, candidate gene and whole-genome association studies have resulted in a tremendous amount of putative risk genes for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
The preliminary findings from this study support the possibility that aerobic fitness is positively associated with the memory performance of those individuals at most genetic risk for Alzheimer disease. 3 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.