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 1,026–1,050 of 1,159 studies (page 42 of 47)· 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 36 out of 100.·Neuroscience·1995-01-01
We studied a synatophysin-like immunoreactivity in the hippocampal formation of patients with definite Alzheimer's disease, multi-infarct dementia, patients with no evidence of clinical dementia with neuropathological findings fulfilling the criteria of possible Alzheimer's disease, and age-matched nondemented controls. 3 key findings →
Although neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) formation is a central event in both familial and sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD), neither cellular origin nor functional consequence of the NFTs are fully understood. 3 key findings →
Aberrant mitosis occurs in many tauopathy-related neurodegenerative diseases and is believed to precede the formation of neurofibrillary tangles. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·2012-04-10
Disruption of intracellular calcium homeostasis via abnormal and excessive activation of ryanodine receptors plays an important role in the neuropathology of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
The receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) is known to be causally involved in a variety of pathophysiological processes, e.g. immune/inflammatory disorders, Alzheimer disease, tumors, and abnormalities associated with diabetes as arteriosclerosis or disordered wound healing. 1 key finding →
Neurodegeneration, synaptic alterations, and gliosis are prominent features of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) encephalitis, but HIV encephalitis is distinct from other viral encephalitides because neurodegeneration occurs in uninfected neurons at anatomical sites that are often distant from the site of viral replication. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2010-07-17
Although the pathogenesis of sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) is not clearly understood, it is likely dependent on several age-related factors. 3 key findings →
Huntington's disease (HD) is an autosomal dominant, late onset, neurodegenerative disease characterized by motor deficits and dementia that is caused by expansion of a CAG repeat in the HD gene. 4 key findings →
The receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) is a pattern-recognition receptor that binds to diverse ligands and initiates a downstream proinflammatory signaling cascade. 2 key findings →
Tauopathies, characterized by neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) of phosphorylated tau proteins, are a group of neurodegenerative diseases, including frontotemporal dementia and both sporadic and familial Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), which are composed of hyperphosphorylated and ubiquitylated tau, are exhibited at regions where neuronal loss occurs in neurodegenerative diseases; however, the mechanisms of NFT formation remain unknown. 2 key findings →
We found that these brain ApoE knock-out (bEKO) mice had synaptic loss and dysfunction similar to that of ApoE KO mice; however, the bEKO mice did not have the learning and memory impairment observed in ApoE KO mice. 5 key findings →
Tauopathies, including Alzheimer's disease, are a group of neurodegenerative diseases characterized by abnormal tau hyperphosphorylation that leads to formation of neurofibrillary tangles. 2 key findings →
Tauopathies, including Alzheimer's disease and fronto-temporal dementia and parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17), are a group of neurodegenerative disorders characterized by the presence of intraneuronal filamentous inclusions of aberrantly phosphorylated-tau. 4 key findings →
Abnormal hyperphosphorylation of microtubule-associated protein tau is involved in the pathogenesis of several neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
The formation and deposition of tau protein aggregates is proposed to contribute to cognitive impairments in dementia by disrupting neuronal function in brain regions, including the hippocampus. 4 key findings →
Transgenic Tg(PG14) mice express a mutant prion protein containing 14 octapeptide repeats, whose human homologue is associated with an inherited prion dementia. 3 key findings →
10 of the 1,155 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.