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 1,276–1,300 of 1,346 studies (page 52 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 35 out of 100.·Annals of Medicine·2025-10-24
Emerging evidence transcends the traditional central nervous system (CNS)-centric perspective, revealing that neutrophils, red blood cells (RBCs), and platelets may play critical roles in AD pathogenesis by modulating systemic inflammatory responses, disrupting blood-brain barrier integrity, and participating in the CNS-peripheral interactions. 2 key findings →
The accuracy of α-synuclein-SAA for DLB was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77% to 98%) in CSF, 85% (95% CI: 75% to 98%) in skin, 58% (95% CI: 47% to 69%) in olfactory mucosa, and 59% (95% CI: 51% to 66%) in urine. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·1988-03-01
Studies were undertaken to assess the extent to which messenger RNA prepared from the postmortem Alzheimer's disease (AD) brain can be used for the successful preparation of a recombinant cDNA library. 2 key findings →
Among 15,346 White, 829 Latino, 637 Black/African American, and 321 Asian individuals, 51% were female, mean age was 75.7 years, 535 (3.8%) resided in ADI 91 to 100 decile, and 61.6% were amyloid PET positive. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurology Genetics·2025-07-21
The APOE (apolipoprotein E) ε4 allele is the strongest known genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) and for brain amyloidosis, an early marker of disease pathophysiology. 4 key findings →
These findings suggest that sexual differentiation in early life has modest effects on adult development of AD in females, a relationship that appeared stronger in the context of APOE4 . 4 key findings →
In the colocalization of cis-eQTL and GWAS signals for Hispanics, we observed a high posterior probability (posterior prob = 0.9947) for the upstream gene variant rs755980338 on chromosome 11, which locally regulates EHD1 gene (GWAS p-value = 0.009, cis-eQTL p-value = 0.0041). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Neurology·2025-04-07
This report highlights a case of relapsing remitting rapidly progressive dementia due to cerebral amyloid angiopathy-related inflammation (CAA-ri), focusing on the diagnostic challenges and the dramatic response to corticosteroid treatment. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100.·Medicine·2025-10-31
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), which is prevalent among older adults, constitutes a major cause of brain hemorrhage, dementia, and cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by synaptic dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·1994-11-01
Previous studies have shown a marked decline in neuronal and an increase in glial gene expression in Alzheimer's disease (AD) neocortex. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-06-09
To determine the relationship between regional brain edema caused by anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody therapy (ARIA-E) and the degree of regional β-amyloid (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) signal reduction. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100.·Cells·2026-06-24
Microglia are central regulators of Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis, but their roles cannot be reduced to a simple protective-versus-harmful dichotomy. 4 key findings →
Of note, using large-scale transcriptome and chromatin profiling, we show that T cell shape microglia-specific metabolic plasticity in both genetic and epigenetic resolution. 2 key findings →
10 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 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 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.