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 1,126–1,150 of 1,355 studies (page 46 of 55)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2006-12-01
A small, orally available natural product penetrates into the brain in vivo to rescue the memory impairment produced by soluble Abeta oligomers through a mechanism that restores hippocampal synaptic plasticity. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Aging cell·2016-01-19
There is growing evidence of the involvement of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative processes including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their function as a seed for the aggregation of Aβ, a hallmark feature of AD. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a debilitating dementia characterized by progressive memory loss and aggregation of amyloid-β (Aβ) protein into amyloid plaques in patient brains. 5 key findings →
The hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology include senile plaques accumulation and neurofibrillary tangles, which is thought to underlie synaptic failure. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·1996-06-01
Apolipoprotein E (apoE) is a major risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), which is the most common cause of progressive dementing illness. 3 key findings →
The distribution of apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotypes as a function of age and sex has been examined in a French population of 417 Alzheimer disease (AD) patients and 1,030 control subjects. 1 key finding →
The amyloid beta protein and the amyloid beta-protein precursor (APP) are major constituents of senile plaques and cerebrovascular deposits in patients with Alzheimer disease and Down syndrome. 1 key finding →
Immunostaining of adenosine receptors in the hippocampus and cerebral cortex from necropsies of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients shows that there is a change in the pattern of expression and a redistribution of receptors in these brain areas when compared with samples from controls. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease, the most common neurodegenerative disorder of senile dementia, is characterized by two major morpho-pathological hallmarks. 4 key findings →
Beta-site Amyloid precursor protein Cleaving Enzyme 1 (BACE1) is conceived as a potential target for therapies against Alzheimer disease (AD) which is characterized by the accumulation of plaques formed of short β-amyloid (APPβ) peptides. 4 key findings →
The control of viral infections in the brain involves the activation of microglial cells, the macrophages of the brain that are constantly surveying the central nervous system, and the production of amyloid-beta (Aβ) as an anti-microbial molecule. 4 key findings →
Cytoskeletal abnormalities and synaptic loss, typical of both familial and sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD), are induced by diverse stresses such as neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and energetic stress, each of which may be initiated or enhanced by proinflammatory cytokines or amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides. 4 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) polymorphism has been appreciated as a valuable predictor of Alzheimer disease (AD), and the associated ε4 allele has been recognized as an indicator of susceptibility to this disease. 4 key findings →
Environmental factors like neighborhood disadvantage are also associated with cognitive decline, however, few studies have integrated this with APOE research. 5 key findings →
We observed that GSK-3β activity was significantly upregulated in ApoE4 mice, accompanied by disruption of the insulin signaling pathway. 5 key findings →
10 of the 1,353 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 10. The same 10 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.