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
29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 3,651–3,675 of 16,388 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 147 of 656)· 29,380 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; 14,855 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.
Oxidative stress induced by inhibition of glutathione (GSH) biosynthesis with D,L-buthionine-S,R-sulfoximine (BSO) causes human microglia, human astrocytes, THP-1 cells, and U373 cells to secrete materials toxic to human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells and stimulates them to release TNF-alpha, IL-6, and nitrite ions. 4 key findings →
Astrocytes are glial cells that are distributed throughout the central nervous system in an arrangement optimal for chemical and physical interaction with neuronal synapses and brain blood supply vessels. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly, and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly, and manifests as progressive cognitive decline and profound neuronal loss. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most prevalent cause of dementia in humans, and the symptoms are commonly manifested after the seventh decade of life. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1995-10-01
To evaluate the presence and distribution of central nervous system infection by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), we used immunohistochemical methods to map the HIV-1 p24 core protein in the brains of 55 autopsied patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2003-03-01
We examined the associations of postmortem neocortical immunoreactivities for microglia, astrocytes, Abeta and Tau with cognitive changes in clinically characterized subjects with pathological diagnoses (CERAD classification) of definite AD (9), possible AD (15) and age-matched controls (11). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Stroke·2001-05-01
Vascular disease causes multi-infarct dementia (MID) or Binswanger's disease (BD), the latter of which is a progressive form of vascular dementia (VaD) associated pathologically with fibrinoid and hyaline changes in brain arterioles with injury to the white matter. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Bioorganic chemistry·2022-11-25
Alzheimer's disease (AD), characterized by the β-amyloid protein (Aβ) deposition and tau hyperphosphorylation, is the most common dementia with uncertain etiology. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common neurodegenerative disorder associated with dementia, is typified by the pathological accumulation of amyloid Aβ peptides and neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) within the brain. 4 key findings →
The cross-disciplinary expertise, required for GA, common in the days before medical specialization and enabled by the relative paucity of development in various fields compared with today, can be reborn with the advent of Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems that make the tools of medical geography accessible to a wide variety of health care researchers and clinical subspecialties. 4 key findings →
Approximately half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA), a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare (TM). 3 key findings →
Discussions revealed that people were generally supportive of this type of research, provided they gave informed consent and that devices were discreet, comfortable and easy to use. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Health Affairs·2022-09-01
In 2020 Medicare reintroduced Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) to risk-adjust Medicare Advantage and accountable care organization (ACO) payments. 5 key findings →
Of 15,390 narratives collected from 3139 patients with PsA for exploratory analysis, physical concepts were the most common (81.5%), followed by emotional (50.7%), cognitive (20.0%), role activity (8.1%), and social (5.6%) concepts. 5 key findings →
As they mix together, they become purple.2 According to a few previous reports, PUBS often occurred in elderly women who are bedridden, chronically catheterized, and constipated.3 In addition, PUBS was found in alkaline urine and with higher bacterial counts.3,4 Because of lack of significant patient numbers, the clinical background, underlining diseases, urinanalysis, and incidence of PUBS have not been well documented. 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%),
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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.