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 4,026–4,050 of 16,388 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 162 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.
The targeting of amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques therapeutically as one of the primary causes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia has been an ongoing effort spanning decades. 5 key findings →
Our study has established a significant link between CAA-Aβ antibody immune complex formation, immune activation and vascular damage leading to smooth muscle cell loss. 5 key findings →
Lecanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting β-amyloid protofibrils, has shown promising results in a Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. 1 key finding →
The emerging class of bispecific antibodies represents a significant advancement in Alzheimer's disease (AD) immunotherapy by addressing the limited brain concentrations achieved with conventional monoclonal antibodies. 3 key findings →
Recent advancements in Alzheimer's disease treatment have focused on the elimination of amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaque, a hallmark of the disease. 1 key finding →
The development of humanized IgG1 anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies, such as lecanemab, provides a promising novel treatment pathway with potential disease-modifying effects for patients with early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Lecanemab (product name Leqembi®) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Cells·2024-11-27
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in the elderly population (aged 65 years and over), followed by vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, and rare types of neurodegenerative diseases, including frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid beta, which is strongly associated with disease progression and cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
This review considers the use of these mouse models in understanding the mechanisms of Aβ clearance, cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), blood brain barrier breakdown, neuroinflammation, and neuronal dysfunction in response to Aβ immunotherapy. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Drugs & aging·2025-10-03
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder pathologically characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles of hyperphosphorylated tau in the brain. 5 key findings →
These guidelines facilitate the accurate diagnosis and effective management of ARIA; ensure the safe administration of anti-Aβ drugs; and provide a framework for MRI facilities, includes staffing requirements and the use of MRI management systems. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Biomedicines·2025-03-01
The prevalence of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) has been shown to increase with age, with rates reported to be around 50-60% in individuals over 80 years old who have cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2021-12-23
Expansions of a G 4 C 2 repeat in the C9ORF72 gene are the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), two devastating adult-onset neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the deposition of amyloid-β as extracellular plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau as intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature communications·2017-10-17
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is characterized by acute neurological dysfunction and associated with the development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·1990-08-01
An 88-year-old mentally normal woman (Blessed test score = 27) had very large amounts (397/mm2) of deposits stained by anti-beta A4 serum in the first temporal gyrus. 2 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.