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 26–50 of 1,346 studies (page 2 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2020-10-01
The largest cohort, the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer Disease Study (n = 3154), was the PET screening cohort used for a secondary prevention trial designed to slow cognitive decline associated with brain amyloidosis. 3 key findings →
Design:meta-analysisParticipants: 3,154Evidence: high
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2016-03-29
The lack of strong association between brain beta-amyloid deposition and cognitive impairment has been a challenge for the Alzheimer's disease (AD) field. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100.·PLoS medicine·2018-01-09
We found up to 270-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and RA, up to 160-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and UC, up to 180-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and T1D, and up to 175-fold genetic enrichment between FTD and CeD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA·1997-10-01
Among Caucasian subjects from clinic- or autopsy-based studies, the risk of AD was significantly increased for people with genotypes epsilon2/epsilon4 (OR=2.6, 95% CI=1.6-4.0), epsilon3/epsilon4 (OR=3.2, 95% CI=2.8-3.8), and epsilon4/epsilon4 (OR=14.9, 95% CI= 10.8-20.6); whereas, the ORs were decreased for people with genotypes epsilon2/epsilon2 (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.2-2.0) and epsilon2/epsilon3 (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.5-0.8). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·JAMA·1998-03-01
The presence of an APOE-epsilon4 allele is a determinant of AD risk in whites, but African Americans and Hispanics have an increased frequency of AD regardless of their APOE genotype. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2019-10-07
Parietal cortex RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data were generated from individuals with and without Alzheimer disease (AD; n control = 13; n AD = 83) from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·PloS one·2013-04-02
To discover susceptibility genes of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), we conducted a 3-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) using three populations: Japanese from the Japanese Genetic Consortium for Alzheimer Disease (JGSCAD), Koreans, and Caucasians from the Alzheimer Disease Genetic Consortium (ADGC). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2015-01-06
Whether novel risk variants of Alzheimer's disease (AD) identified through genome-wide association studies also influence magnetic resonance imaging-based intermediate phenotypes of AD in the general population is unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2018-07-01
This multicenter randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility of sham-surgery-controlled stereotactic gene delivery studies in patients with AD. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2024-05-06
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of APOE4 homozygosity on Alzheimer's disease (AD) by examining its clinical, pathological and biomarker changes to see whether APOE4 homozygotes constitute a distinct, genetically determined form of AD. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2000-06-01
The APOE*E4 allele of the gene for apolipoprotein E (APOE) has been reported as a risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD) to varying degrees in different ethnic groups. 1 key finding →
We identified a new genetic risk association of AD with rare coding CLU variations that is independent of the 5' common association signal identified in the GWA studies. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·JAMA·1995-04-01
These data suggest the following: (1) patients with mild cognitive impairment can be clinically defined, (2) many members of this group progress to Alzheimer's disease, and (3) APOE epsilon 4 allele status appears to be a strong predictor of clinical progression. 2 key findings →
Plasma amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide levels have been examined as a low-cost accessible marker for risk of incident Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia, but results have varied between studies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-09-16
These results from the largest longitudinal cohort registry of patients with CAA-ri support the transient and potentially relapsing inflammatory nature of the clinical-radiologic acute manifestations of the disease and the effectiveness of slow oral tapering off after IV corticosteroid pulse therapy in preventing recurrences. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2013-08-01
Baseline levels of LD Aβ were greater for adults with mild cognitive impairment compared with adults with normal cognition (LD Aβ42, P = .05; LD Aβ40, P = .01). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2022-07-01
In this genetic association study, a novel variant associated with AD was identified: R251G always coinherited with ε4 on the APOE gene, which mitigates the ε4-associated AD risk. 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.
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.