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 5,726–5,750 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 230 of 1086)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·PloS one·2012-03-22
Accurate prediction of clinical changes of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients, including both qualitative change (i.e., conversion to Alzheimer's disease (AD)) and quantitative change (i.e., cognitive scores) at future time points, is important for early diagnosis of AD and for monitoring the disease progression. 1 key finding →
Diffusion imaging is a promising marker of microstructural damage in neurodegenerative disorders, but interpretation of its relationship with underlying neuropathology can be complex. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2016-03-22
Physical and cognitive exercise may prevent or delay dementia in later life but the neural mechanisms underlying these therapeutic benefits are largely unknown. 3 key findings →
Incidence rates for MCI are higher than previously reported, particularly in men and for single-domain MCI; rates for amnestic and nonamnestic MCI were comparable. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2007-09-24
At baseline and at follow-up MCI-AD showed higher levels P-tau(231), T-tau, IP, P-tau(231)/Abeta(42/40) and T-tau/Abeta(42/40) ratios and lower Abeta(42)/Abeta(40) than MCI-MCI or NL-NL. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Neurology·2007-05-01
Both cognitive impairment, no dementia and mild cognitive impairment are frequent in the Italian elderly (2,955,000 prevalent cases expected) and significantly predict progression to dementia. 3 key findings →
Our meta-analysis identified similar distributions of neuroanatomical changes in AD and MCI, which are consistent with the hierarchical model of neuropathological alterations of neurofibrillary tangles in AD and MCI. 2 key findings →
These findings support the idea that subjective cognitive complaints may be an early clinical marker that precedes mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Nature medicine·1998-01-01
Genetic causes of Alzheimer's disease (AD) include mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP), presenilin 1 (PS1), and presenilin 2 (PS2) genes. 4 key findings →
Autophagy is the principal cellular pathway for degradation of long-lived proteins and organelles and regulates cell fate in response to stress. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Cell·2018-05-01
A major challenge in the field of neurodegenerative diseases and brain aging is to identify the body's intrinsic mechanism that could sense the central nervous system (CNS) damage early and protect the brain from neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →
Variants in triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) confer high risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Circulation research·2020-09-28
Atherosclerotic lesions are known for their cellular heterogeneity, yet the molecular complexity within the cells of human plaques has not been fully assessed. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Immunity·2022-08-04
Brain macrophage populations include parenchymal microglia, border-associated macrophages, and recruited monocyte-derived cells; together, they control brain development and homeostasis but are also implicated in aging pathogenesis and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2020-08-09
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory, demyelinating, and neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system (CNS) triggered by autoimmune mechanisms. 4 key findings →
The mechanisms underpinning concussion, traumatic brain injury, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and the relationships between these disorders, are poorly understood. 4 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 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.