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 1,301–1,325 of 1,346 studies (page 53 of 54)· 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.
CWPs consist predominantly of two novel arrangements of type I Aβ filaments, and we have designated them as type Ic and type Id Aβ filaments. 5 key findings →
This study compared the relationships of the development of both Alzheimer I & II cells to reactive astrogliosis and also their distributional patterns in the demyelinated and non-demyelinated lesions in 6 cases of Wilson's disease by the use of PAP immunohistochemical technique for glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). 5 key findings →
We evaluated known AD-associated loci (Bellenguez et al. 2022) and 27 loci reached nominal significance (p < 0.05) in at least one cognitive domain. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100.·Current Drug Targets·2026-05-14
The predALZ framework achieved 94% accuracy on an independent test set and approximately 96% accuracy in cross-validation for Alzheimer-related driver gene prediction. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology affects the transentorhinal/entorhinal region early but whether entorhinal cortex (EC) astrocytes are causal drivers or therapeutic targets remains unresolved. 5 key findings →
This study aims to comprehensively review the role of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) as a marker of astrocyte activation in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
However, postmortem investigations indicate that the AD-typical progressive amnestic syndrome may also result from predominantly limbic non-AD neuropathology such as TDP-43 proteinopathy and argyrophilic grain disease. 3 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 →
Alzheimer disease is one of the causes of dementia that could make the patient lose their memories until they unable to do normal activities. 2 key findings →
⚠ Retracted — do not rely on italzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Nature·2024-06-24
Eighteen years after it was published, Nature formally retracted the landmark 2006 paper that had proposed a specific amyloid protein (Aβ*56) as a cause of memory loss in mice, citing evidence of image manipulation, including splicing, duplication, and use of an image-editing 'eraser' tool. 5 key findings →
⚠ Retracted — do not rely on italzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Cell·2011-08-01
Directed conversion of mature human cells, as from fibroblasts to neurons, is of potential clinical utility for neurological disease modeling as well as cell therapeutics. 2 key findings →
⚠ Retracted — do not rely on italzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Oncotarget·2017-12-09
Although large numbers of microRNAs (miRNAs) expressed in Alzheimer disease (AD) have been detected, their functions and mechanisms of regulation remain to be fully clarified. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2025-05-21
Anti-amyloid immunotherapy is used to treat Alzheimer disease (AD) with moderate benefits and potentially serious side effects due to amyloid related imaging abnormality with effusions/edema (ARIA-E). 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Preprints.org·2024-02-05
Therapies targeting amyloid, such as monoclonal antibodies like Lecanemab, Aducanumab, and Donanemab, have garnered FDA approval but remain controversial due to limited clinical benefits and significant side effects against Alzheimer. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-17
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) typically represent Alzheimers disease (AD) risk loci by a single lead SNP, although the lead SNP may capture only part of the genetic variation at a locus. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv (preprint)·2026-08-17
Body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related cardiometabolic features associate with Alzheimers disease (AD) risk, yet shared mechanisms remain poorly understood. 1 key finding →
9 of the 1,344 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 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.