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
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 876–900 of 1,385 studies (page 36 of 56)· 28,180 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; 13,658 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.
Experimental data suggest that the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamic is involved in the clearance of beta-amyloid, a key event in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·2013-03-15
Activation of inflammatory processes has been observed within the brain as well as periphery of subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2005-04-15
We determined whether oxidative stress is an early event in the pathogenesis of sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD), and correlated oxidative stress with neuropsychological functions and neurofibrillary pathology in AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Glutamate transporter solute carrier family 1, member 2 (GLT1/EAAT2), a major modulator of glutamate homeostasis in astrocytes, is assessed in post-mortem human brain samples of frontal cortex area 8 in advanced stages of Alzheimer disease (AD) and terminal stages of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) in order to gain understanding of astrogliopathy in diseases manifested by dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Genomics·2007-04-16
The epsilon(4) allele of APOE confers a two- to fourfold increased risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), but LOAD pathology does not all fit neatly around APOE. 3 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (apoE) is associated with several classes of plasma lipoproteins and mediates uptake of lipoproteins through its ability to interact with specific cell surface receptors. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·1994-07-01
Recent data have demonstrated genetic disequilibrium between inheritance of the apolipoprotein E (apoE) epsilon 4 allele and increased risk of Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder associated with aging and characterized pathologically by the presence of senile plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neurite and synapse loss. 2 key findings →
The somatodendritic accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau proteins is an early event preceding the appearance of neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and might be necessary for their formation. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and is pathologically characterized by senile plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, synaptic disruption and loss, and progressive neuronal deficits. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease with many known pathological features, yet there is still much debate into the exact cause and mechanisms for progression of this degenerative disorder. 5 key findings →
Previous studies indicated increased levels of protein oxidation in brain from subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), raising the question of whether oxidative damage is a late effect of neurodegeneration or precedes and contributes to the pathogenesis of AD. 1 key finding →
Many neurodegenerative diseases are associated with the abnormal sequestration of disease-specific proteins in the brain, but the events that initiate this process remain unclear. 4 key findings →
The beta-amyloid precursor protein (beta-APP), from which the beta-A4 peptide is derived, is considered to be central to the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The aspartyl protease beta-site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) initiates processing of amyloid precursor protein (APP) into amyloid beta (Abeta) peptide, the major component of Alzheimer disease (AD) plaques. 4 key findings →
The amyloid forming beta-peptide of Alzheimer's disease is synthesized as part of a larger integral membrane precursor protein (beta APP) of which three alternatively spliced versions of 695, 751, and 770 amino acids have been described. 4 key findings →
9 of the 1,383 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 9. The same 9 appear here every time.
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.
Show only studies that are free to read
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%),
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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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.