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 26–50 of 15,589 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 2 of 624)· 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.
Recent epidemiological and clinico-pathologic data suggest overlaps between Alzheimer disease (AD) and cerebrovascular lesions that may magnify the effect of mild AD pathology and promote progression of cognitive decline or even may precede neuronal damage and dementia. 3 key findings →
The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) allele is associated with an early age of onset of the nonfamilial form of Alzheimer disease (AD) and with increased beta protein amyloid deposition in the brain. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·2004-07-01
We examined the association of mtDNA variation with Alzheimer disease (AD) risk in Caucasians (989 cases and 328 controls) testing the effect of individual haplogroups and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). 3 key findings →
We scanned throughout chromosome 21 to assess genetic associations with late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) using 374 Japanese patients and 375 population-based controls, because trisomy 21 is known to be associated with early deposition of beta-amyloid (Abeta) in the brain. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-05-01
Blood-brain barrier (BBB) impairment is a stable characteristic over 1 year and present in an important subgroup of patients with Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Despite the success of large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWASs) on complex traits, our understanding of their genetic architecture is far from complete. 2 key findings →
Only Apolipoprotein E polymorphisms have been consistently associated with the risk of late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD), but they represent only a minority of the underlying genetic effect. 2 key findings →
Accumulation of the amyloid β (Aβ) peptide within the brain is hypothesized to be one of the main causes underlying the pathogenic events that occur in Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2006-04-01
Although the mechanism underlying vulnerability of white matter tracts in APOE epsilon4 carriers is still unknown, these findings suggest that increased genetic risk for developing Alzheimer disease is associated with changes in microscopic white matter integrity well before the onset of dementia. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2013-11-13
The relationship between PP and CSF biomarkers is age-dependent and observed only in participants in the fifth and sixth decades of life. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2018-06-07
In the initial kindred of ten affected Italian individuals (mean age of disease onset 59·8 years [SD 8·7]), we detected significant linkage of Parkinson's disease to chromosome 14 and nominated LRP10 as the disease-causing gene. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-01-22
The APOE ε4 allele segregated dose-dependently and selectively with CA1-SRLM thinning and worse episodic memory performance in a pool of older subjects across a cognitive spectrum. 4 key findings →
Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) are a common cause of cognitive decline, yet limited therapies exist. 2 key findings →
Among 104 537 individuals, the absolute 10-year risk of Alzheimer disease in 3017 women and men who were carriers of the APOE ɛ44 genotype was, respectively, 7% and 6% at age 60-69 years, 16% and 12% at age 70-79 years, and 24% and 19% at age 80 years and older. 1 key finding →
The authors performed a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial of carbamazepine (400 mg/day) with 21 agitated subjects (16 completers) who had been treated unsuccessfully with antipsychotics. 1 key finding →
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.