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 176–200 of 1,346 studies (page 8 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 60 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2020-07-01
The genotype KL-VSHET+ is associated with reduced AD risk and Aβ burden in individuals who are aged 60 to 80 years, cognitively normal, and carrying APOE4. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA·1998-08-01
Using parametric methods, no evidence for linkage to the region spanned by the chromosome 12 markers could be detected if familial AD is assumed to arise from the same genetic locus in all 53 families. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·JAMA·2010-01-01
This preliminary report suggests that CETP V405 valine homozygosity is associated with slower memory decline and lower incident dementia and AD risk. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-08-08
ARIA-E can also occur spontaneously in cerebral amyloid angiopathy-related inflammation (CAA-ri), a rare autoimmune encephalopathy associated with increased CSF levels of anti-Aβ autoantibodies. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2008-08-01
We used a sensitive and specific beta-site amyloid precursor protein (APP)-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) assay to determine the relationship between BACE1 activity in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and markers of APP metabolism and axonal degeneration in early and late stages of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2022-01-12
The neuropathologic changes underlying Alzheimer disease (AD) start before overt cognitive symptoms arise, but it is not well-known how they relate to the first subtle cognitive changes. 4 key findings →
Using Fisher's exact test, there was significant association of both ABI3_rs616338-T (OR = 1.41, p = 0.044) and PLCG2_rs72824905-G (OR = 0.56, p = 0.008) with AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100.·Neurology·2000-02-01
The results of this preliminary case-control study suggest that estradiol levels may decline significantly in women in whom AD develops. 5 key findings →
Our ancestry-aware regression approach showed that AA individuals have a lower risk of AD if they inherited African ancestry admixture block at the 17p13.2 locus. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2015-01-13
Low plasma levels of apoE are associated with increased risk of future Alzheimer disease and all dementia in the general population, independent of ε2/ε3/ε4 APOE genotype. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Neurology·2001-05-01
A population-based longitudinal study in Sweden, the Kungsholmen Project A random sample of 370 nondemented persons, aged 75 years and older and not treated with B(12) and folate, was followed for 3 years to detect incident AD cases. 1 key finding →
Even in elderly subjects without dementia, the apolipoprotein E genotype is related to the degree of deposition of beta-amyloid protein in the cerebral cortex. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2024-03-27
Microglia are central players in Alzheimer's disease pathology but analyzing microglial states in human brain samples is challenging due to genetic diversity, postmortem delay and admixture of pathologies. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2026-03-19
Among 2157 older adults without dementia (mean [SD] age 71.2 [9.2] years; 1337 female [62.0%]), 1680 participants had longitudinal cognition data and 569 participants (26.4%) had APOE34/44 genotypes. 5 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.