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
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 4,376–4,400 of 16,727 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 176 of 670)· 29,780 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; 15,255 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.
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous genetic variants associated with AD risk, while a transcriptomic analysis has revealed dysregulated gene expression patterns in the brains of individuals with AD. 3 key findings →
An improved understanding of the pathobiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) should lead ultimately to an earlier and more accurate diagnosis of AD, providing the opportunity to intervene earlier in the disease process and to improve outcomes. 5 key findings →
Our data indicates that Aβ-induced astrocytic autophagic plasticity is an important cellular event to modulate Aβ clearance and maintain cognitive function in AD mice. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·1990-04-01
We demonstrated senile plaques with glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) stain in prefrontal and parietal cortex and in hippocampus of 3 cases of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
The use of Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio rather than Aβ42 alone could contribute toward pre-analytical standardization, thus allowing the general use of CSF AD biomarkers in routine practice. 1 key finding →
These findings suggest that a capsaicin-rich diet may exert favorable effects on AD blood biomarkers and cognitive function in middle-aged and elderly adults. 3 key findings →
Ultrasensitive assays have been developed which enable biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease pathology and neurodegeneration to be measured in blood. 3 key findings →
High-throughput plasma Aβ42/40 LC-MS/MS assays can help identify patients with low likelihood of AD pathology, which can reduce PET evaluations, allowing for cost savings. 1 key finding →
Our findings suggest a temporal sequence of events in App NL-F/NL-F knock-in mice, in which initial deposition of Aβ aggregates in the brain is followed by a decline of the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio in CSF and serum once the cerebral Aβ pathology becomes significant. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·2013-03-15
Activation of inflammatory processes has been observed within the brain as well as periphery of subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
These data indicate that the AD genetic architecture influences cognitive and CSF phenotypes in DS adults, supporting common pathways that influence memory decline in both traits. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·RSC chemical biology·2025-03-13
The aggregation of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides (Aβ42/Aβ40) into amyloid fibrils and plaques is one of the molecular hallmarks in dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Offspring with a family history of LOAD on the maternal side have lower Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 ratio in the CSF, and maybe at higher risk for developing AD. 3 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%),
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.
1,037 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.