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 9,376–9,400 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 376 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.
This study provides new insights into the regional binding distribution of a first-generation and a second-generation Tau tracer in limbic and neocortical regions in adults with DS, as well as regional differences in Tau binding in adult with DS vs. those with AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2016-10-24
The search for new therapeutic approaches to Alzheimer disease (AD) is a major goal in medicine and society, also due to the impressive economic and social costs of this disease. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·PET clinics·2017-04-18
Biomarkers of the molecular pathology underpinning dementia syndromes are increasingly recognized as crucial for diagnosis and development of disease-modifying treatments. 5 key findings →
Expression of LRP1 by neurons in proximity to senile amyloid plaques does not appear to play a major role in modulating the formation of these proximal deposits or in the appearance of the associated neuritic pathology. 3 key findings →
Clinical studies have shown that epileptic seizures worsen Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and related cognitive deficits; however, the underlying mechanism is unclear. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Rejuvenation research·2010-04-01
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a heterogeneous and progressive neurodegenerative disease, which in Western society mainly accounts for senile dementia. 5 key findings →
A person affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) gradually loses the ability to perform activities of daily living and becomes dependent on caregivers, thereby having a negative impact on the caregivers' quality of life. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Age and ageing·2004-06-24
There is a well-documented tendency for cognitive tests to underestimate the abilities of older people in black and minority ethnic groups. 2 key findings →
This article reports findings from three linked qualitative research projects that explored how Australian general practitioners (GPs) spoke about their experiences in diagnosing dementia and their views on early diagnosis and barriers towards early diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Future studies should consider culturally tailoring interventions for Hispanic/Latino caregivers from differing subcultures, utilizing relevant technology in studies, and evaluating the functional level of the care receiver and assess where he/she is in the disease process continuum. 3 key findings →
A key challenge to adults with Down syndrome (DS) as they age is an increased risk for cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Two genes on chromosome 21, namely dual specificity tyrosine phosphorylation-regulated kinase 1A (Dyrk1A) and regulator of calcineurin 1 (RCAN1), have been implicated in some of the phenotypic characteristics of Down syndrome, including the early onset of Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
The survival of cultured mouse hippocampal neurons was found to be greatly enhanced by micromolar concentrations of the excitatory neurotransmitter glutamate. 3 key findings →
We identified by a monoclonal antibody-based immunoradiometric assay high concentrations of an exocrine pancreatic protein called pancreatic thread protein (PTP) in several areas of Alzheimer disease (AD) brain. 2 key findings →
Reduced spine densities and age-dependent accumulation of amyloid β and tau pathology are shared features of Down syndrome (DS) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
DYRK1A (dual specificity tyrosine phosphorylation-regulated kinase 1A) has been shown to be involved in learning and memory impairments in Alzheimer disease and Down syndrome. 3 key findings →
Down syndrome (DS), the most common cause of intellectual disability of genetic origin, is characterized by alterations in central nervous system morphology and function that appear from early prenatal stages. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-10-29
Because of an extra copy of the Aβ precursor protein gene on chromosome 21, Down syndrome (DS) individuals develop high levels of Aβ peptides and Alzheimer disease-like brain amyloidosis early in life. 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.