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 7,976–8,000 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 320 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Rand health quarterly·2019-05-16
No disease-modifying therapy is currently available for Alzheimer's disease, but therapies are in development, and one may become available in the near future. 1 key finding →
Several studies have recently shown that basal ganglia (BG) deterioration leads to distinctive impairments in the domains of syntax, action verbs, and action semantics. 3 key findings →
Our findings suggest that restoration of the expression of nuclear-encoded OXPHOS genes in aging could be a viable strategy for blunting AD progression. 4 key findings →
Beta-amyloid peptides that are cleaved from the amyloid precursor protein (APP) play a critical role in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology. 3 key findings →
Coptidis Rhizoma and its isolated alkaloids are reported to possess a variety of activities, including neuroprotective and antioxidant effects. 4 key findings →
beta-Amyloid formation requires multiple abnormal proteolytic cleavages of amyloid precursor protein (APP), including one within its intramembrane domain. 4 key findings →
Plasma and serum biochemical markers proposed for Alzheimer disease (AD) are based on pathophysiologic processes such as amyloid plaque formation [amyloid beta-protein (A beta), A beta autoantibodies, platelet amyloid precursor protein (APP) isoforms], inflammation (cytokines), oxidative stress (vitamin E, isoprostanes), lipid metabolism (apolipoprotein E, 24S-hydroxycholesterol), and vascular disease [homocysteine, lipoprotein (a)]. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·The EMBO journal·1994-03-01
Accumulation of the amyloid A beta peptide, which is derived from a larger precursor protein (APP), and the formation of plaques, are major events believed to be involved in the etiology of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
A peptide corresponding to the amino acid sequence of A beta 17-42 (LVFFAEDVGSNKGAIIGLMVGGVVIA) was isolated from Alzheimer Disease patient brains containing large deposits of diffuse-type amyloid. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·EMBO reports·2008-12-05
Amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) accumulation leads to neurodegeneration and Alzheimer disease; however, amyloid metabolism is a dynamic process and enzymic mechanisms exist for Abeta removal. 4 key findings →
Ectodomain shedding and intramembrane proteolysis of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) by alpha-, beta- and gamma-secretase are involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is implied both in cell growth and differentiation and in neurodegenerative processes in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Gamma-secretase is a multiprotein complex responsible for the intramembranous cleavage of the amyloid precursor protein and other type I transmembrane proteins. 4 key findings →
Genetic analysis of familial forms of Alzheimer's disease (AD) causally links the proteolytic processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and AD. 4 key findings →
The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is proteolytically processed by beta- and gamma-secretases to release amyloid beta, the main component in senile plaques found in the brains of patients with Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Estrogen reduces the risk of Alzheimer's disease in post-menopausal women, beta-amyloid (Abeta) burden in animal models of Alzheimer's disease, and secretion of Abeta from neuronal cultures. 4 key findings →
Pathophysiologic hypotheses for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are centered on the role of the amyloid plaque Abeta peptide and the mechanism of its derivation from the amyloid precursor protein (APP). 4 key findings →
Variants in the gene encoding the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) are known to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer disease and Parkinson's disease (PD). 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.