Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

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.

The evidence is compelling that free radicals, plus increases in free cytosolic Ca2+ and Na+, figure prominently in neuronal death after exposure to glutamate and dicarboxylic excitotoxins such as NMDA and kainate. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Chronic glial activation and neuroinflammation induced by the amyloid‐β peptide (Aβ) contribute to Alzheimer's disease ( AD ) pathology. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Previously, we found that amyloid beta-protein (Abeta)1-42 exhibits neurotoxicity, while Abeta1-40 serves as an antioxidant molecule by quenching metal ions and inhibiting metal-mediated oxygen radical generation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Microtubules and their associated proteins play a prominent role in many physiological and morphological aspects of brain function. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) is a genetic disorder caused by mutations in Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) or Presenilin (PSEN) genes. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The 42-amino acid fragment of amyloid β (Aβ1-42) in cerebrospinal fluid has continued to be important for detecting cerebral β-amyloidosis in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive degenerative dementia characterized by the abundant presence of neurofibrillary tangles in neurons. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurochemical dementia diagnostics (NDD) can significantly improve the clinically based categorization of patients with early dementia disorders, and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of amyloid beta peptides ending at the amino acid position of 42 (A beta x-42 and A beta 1-42) are widely accepted biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurogenesis occurs in the adult mammalian brain and may play roles in learning and memory processes and recovery from injury, suggesting that abnormalities in neural progenitor cells (NPC) might contribute to the pathogenesis of disorders of learning and memory in humans. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Proteolytic cleavage of beta-amyloid precursor protein (beta APP) by alpha-secretase results in release of one secreted form (sAPP) of APP (sAPP alpha), whereas cleavage by beta-secretase releases a C-terminally truncated sAPP (sAPP beta) plus amyloid beta-peptide (A beta). beta APP mutations linked to some inherited forms of Alzheimer's disease may alter its processing such that levels of sAPP alpha are reduced and levels of sAPP beta increased. sAPP alpha s may play important roles in neuronal plasticity and survival, whereas A beta can be neurotoxic. sAPP alpha was approximately 100-fold more potent than sAPP beta in protecting hippocampal neurons against excitotoxicity, A beta toxicity, and glucose deprivation. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction have been linked to neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Proteomics in Alzheimer's disease: insights into potential mechanisms of neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of neurochemistry 2003-09-01

Proteomics involves the identification of unknown proteins following their separation, often using two-dimensional electrophoresis, digestion of particular proteins of interest by trypsin, determination of the molecular weight of the resulting peptides, and database searching to make the identification of the proteins. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The distinctive cortical uptake of the tracer (18)F-FDDNP (2-(1-{6-[(2-fluoroethyl(methyl)amino]-2-naphthyl}ethylidene)malononitrile) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is believed to be because of its binding to both neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) and highly fibrillar senile plaques. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

High morbidity, enormous socioeconomic costs, and lack of specific treatments emphasize the importance of research on protective therapies against Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The promising results obtained with aducanumab and solanezumab against Alzheimer's disease (AD) strengthen the vaccine approach to prevent AD, despite of the many clinical setbacks. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Female and male 2-3-month-old Sprague-Dawley rats were heat shocked at 42 degrees C for 15 min. At 0, 3, 6, 12 and 24 h after heat shock, qualitative and quantitative immunoblot analysis of cerebral extracts and immunohistochemistry were performed using monoclonal anti-tau antibodies that recognize nonphosphorylated (Tau-1), phosphorylated (PHF-1), and phosphate-independent (Tau-5 and Tau-46) epitopes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomized / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multicenter collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events