Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

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.

Familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD) is caused by dominant missense mutations in amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin-1 (PSEN1), the catalytic component of γ-secretase that generates amyloid β-peptides (Aβ) from the APP C-terminal fragment C99. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increased synthesis and release of S100 beta protein from activated astrocytes has been implicated in the overgrowth of dystrophic neurites in neuritic plaques in Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Glutamatergic alterations and mitochondrial impairment in a murine model of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2011-10-27

Deficits in glutamate neurotransmission and mitochondrial functions were detected in the frontal cortex (FC) and hippopcampus (HIPP) of aged 3×Tg-Alzheimer's disease (AD) mice, compared with their wild type littermates (non-Tg). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease is a severe neurodegenerative disorder of the brain, pathologically characterized by extracellular beta-amyloid plaques, intraneuronal Tau inclusions, inflammation, reactive glial cells, vascular pathology and neuronal cell death. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Selective increases in soluble Abeta(1-42) after TBI may predispose individuals with a brain injury to Alzheimer disease pathology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Targeting amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) within the brain is a strategy actively sought for therapy of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Previous data demonstrate that bexarotene (Bex), retinoid X receptor (RXR) agonist, reduces soluble and insoluble amyloid-β (Aβ) in Alzheimer disease (AD)-transgenic mice either by increasing the levels of mouse apolipoprotein E (apoE) or increasing ABCA1/ABCG1-induced apoE lipoprotein association/lipidation. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Apolipoprotein E (apoE) and apoE-derived proteolytic fragments are present in amyloid deposits in Alzheimer disease (AD) and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Attention deficit is one of the core symptoms of the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is an age-related neurodegenerative disorder, characterized histopathologically by the presence of senile plaques (SP), neurofibrillary tangles and synapse loss in selected brain regions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The extracellular accumulation of amyloid-beta (Abeta) in neuritic plaques is one of the characteristic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), a progressive dementing neurodegenerative disorder of the elderly. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A change of the prion protein conformation results in a class of neurodegenerative diseases called the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (like mad cow and Creutzfeld-Jakob diseases). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Active immunization with the human amyloid peptide (Abeta42) or passive immunization with anti-Abeta42 antibodies protects mice that express a mutant human amyloid precursor protein (APP) transgene from cerebral amyloid deposits. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The amyloid-beta (Aβ) peptide is the derivative of amyloid precursor protein (APP) generated through sequential proteolytic processing by β- and γ-secretases. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Retinal amyloid peptides and complement factor H in transgenic models of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neuroreport 2011-08-01

Murine transgenic models of Alzheimer's disease (Tg-AD) have been useful to analyze the contribution of β-amyloid precursor protein (βAPP), Aβ42 peptide deposition, and the proinflammatory mechanisms that characterize Alzheimer-type neuropathology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Transmembrane proteins BRI2 and amyloid precursor protein (APP) co-localize with amyloid beta (Abeta) lesions in sporadic Alzheimer disease and mutations in both precursor proteins are linked to early-onset familial cases of cerebral amyloidosis associated with dementia and/or cerebral hemorrhage. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

9 of the 1,348 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.

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed