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 10,726–10,750 of 10,985 studies · free to read(page 430 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.
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the neurodegenerative condition that occurs in the elderly population above 65 years old and is the major cause of dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100.·Probecell Science·2026-01-11
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder involving the amyloid-β plaque deposition, tau pathology, synaptic dysfunction, and impairment in cognition. 3 key findings →
Progressive neurodegeneration, which causes memory loss, cognitive decline, and functional impairment is known as Alzheimer's disease, the most common type of dementia, first identified by Alois Alzheimer in 1907. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia and represents a significant global health problem due to its profound impact on patients' quality of life and the heavy burden it places on health care. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100.·BioSCIENCE·2025-09-05
Introdução: O sequenciamento de nova geração (NGS) tem revolucionado a compreensão da doença de Alzheimer (DA), desvendando biomarcadores genéticos e transcriptômicos que aprimoram a estrutura ATN (beta-amiloide, Tau, neurodegeneração). 5 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a multi-factorial neurodegenerative disease that is characterized by accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ), protein aggregation and progressive neuronal dysfunction. 1 key finding →
A Doença de Alzheimer (DA) é a principal causa de demência em idosos, causada pelo acúmulo de β-amiloide e emaranhados neurofibrilares no cérebro. 5 key findings →
Objetivo: Objetivou-se sintetizar, em revisão narrativa, as evidências publicadas entre 2022–2025 sobre o potencial neuroprotetor dos análogos do GLP-1 na Doença de Alzheimer (DA). 5 key findings →
Các bệnh lý như lao và Alzheimer đòi hỏi phát hiện sớm với độ nhạy cao để can thiệp kịp thời, tuy nhiên các kỹ thuật hiện nay như ELISA, PCR còn hạn chế về chi phí và độ nhạy. Những tiến bộ gần đây trong công nghệ nano cho thấy hạt nano vàng vỏ đồng kết hợp sinh phẩm tái tổ hợp (protein hoặc aptamer) có thể khuếch đại tín hiệu màu, mở ra triển vọng cho chẩn đoán sớm siêu nhạy. Bài tổng quan này phân tích cơ chế kỹ thuật xét nghiệm kháng nguyên bằng sự hình thành vỏ nano đồng trên hạt vàng, trong đó ion Cu²⁺ được khử bởi natri ascorbate trên bề mặt AuNPs với vai trò ổn định của polyethylenimine, tạo cấu trúc Au-Cu đa giác giúp tăng cường tín hiệu plasmon. 5 key findings →
Las enfermedades neurodegenerativas representan un importante problema de salud pública debido a su creciente prevalencia y al carácter progresivo e irreversible del daño neuronal que producen. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100.·Revista de Medicina·2025-05-08
Introdução: Com o aumento da expectativa de vida e do percentual de idosos no país, também está crescendo a taxa de doenças neurodegenerativas. 5 key findings →
Dementia encompasses a group of progressive neurodegenerative disorders marked by cognitive, behavioural, and functional decline, underpinned by complex neurobiological processes. 5 key findings →
Advance care planning aims to allow individuals to discuss their goals and preferences for future medical and nursing care with family members and medical personnel in advance when they still have decision-making ability, so that individuals can receive medical care that meets their preferences when they lose their decision-making ability. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 27 out of 100.·Innovation in Aging·2025-12-01
Riverside Health has developed a new palliative care pathway to serve as an innovative standard of person-centered care for persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners. 1 key finding →
(1) GARS-AIRS-GART is an important candidate gene in studies of Down syndrome (DS)-related Alzheimer's disease (AD), due to its chromosomal localization (21q22.1) in the Down syndrome critical region, involvement in de novo purine biosynthesis, and over-expression in DS brain. 3 key findings →
The findings demonstrate five central negative conditions of precarity that older people had to manage: (a) loss and discontinuity of home-based healthcare services, (b) stress after loss or disruption of social support, (c) problems of poverty, (d) cognitive impairment and declining health and (e) stress of eviction. 5 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.