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 6,526–6,550 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 262 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.
Neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), and Huntington's disease (HD), are significant global health challenges, owing to their profound impact on cognitive, motor, and behavioral functions. 1 key finding →
Soluble plasma Aβ42/40 ratio is the most robust biomarker to discriminate between AD patients and CN individuals, as it normalizes for the number of NDEVs. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2025-01-06
This is the first report describing Aβ-PF species captured by lecanemab in human CSF and supporting that Lec-PF is correlated with neurodegeneration in AD and may explain the mechanism of the clinical effect of lecanemab. 3 key findings →
We compared the clinical and analytical performance of Alzheimer's disease (AD) plasma biomarkers measured using the single-molecule array (Simoa) and Lumipulse platforms. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-05-01
In this Delphi survey study, international experts reached consensus on a range of criteria for referral to specialist palliative care. 1 key finding →
Accumulating >300 min/week of MVPA, whether concentrated within 1-2 days or distributed evenly across the week, was associated with a decreased risk of dementia. 4 key findings →
Growing evidence suggests that peripheral diseases serve as risk factors for dementia, but the population-level burden of dementia associated with various peripheral diseases has remained unknown. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Nature Aging·2026-05-15
The APOE locus is the strongest genetic factor for Alzheimer's disease, with ε4 increasing and ε2 decreasing risk, yet the basis of these opposing effects remains unclear. 1 key finding →
We report for the first time quantitative data on the plasma levels of p-tau181 in controls and patients with AD and DS, and these data suggest that the plasma p-tau181 is a promising blood biomarker for brain AD pathology. 5 key findings →
Disease staging, whereby the spatial extent and load of brain pathology are used to estimate the severity of Alzheimer disease (AD), is pivotal to the gold-standard neuropathological diagnosis of AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-04-04
We describe a 2-feature biomarker approach to classifying elderly CN subjects that is complementary to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association preclinical staging criteria. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2021-06-01
Individuals with early AD show heterogeneity in disease progression, which increases when stratifying on risk factors associated with progression. 3 key findings →
The extent to which the pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease corresponds to the pathophysiology of 'sporadic' late onset Alzheimer's disease is unknown, thus limiting the extrapolation of study findings and clinical trial results in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease to late onset Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
We selected the cerebellum as a pseudo-reference region based on the immunohistochemical comparison of age-matched PS2APP and WT mice. 2 key findings →
A higher proportion of patients in the immediate feedback arm showed a change in diagnosis compared to the controls (32.6 vs. 6.4%; p = 0.0001). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100.·Neurology·2024-09-27
Our results reveal a spatial association between the epileptogenic focus and tau deposition, amyloid deposition, and neurodegeneration in early clinical stages of AD. 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 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.