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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 751–775 of 1,356 studies published 2021(page 31 of 55)· 27,380 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; 12,859 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.
There is a pressing need to capture and track subtle cognitive change at the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD) rapidly, cost-effectively, and with high sensitivity. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2021-08-25
COVID-19 has caused obstacles in continuing normal life almost everywhere in the world by causing the implementation of social distancing and eventually imposing the lockdown. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature genetics·2021-01-28
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many risk loci for Alzheimer's disease (AD) 1,2 , but how these loci confer AD risk is unclear. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-03-12
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 40 loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the causal variants, regulatory elements, genes and pathways remain largely unknown, impeding a mechanistic understanding of AD pathogenesis. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature neuroscience·2021-01-11
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the selective vulnerability of specific neuronal populations, the molecular signatures of which are largely unknown. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-05-21
The role of microglia cells in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is well recognized, however their molecular and functional diversity remain unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-03-25
Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-Seq) is widely used to reveal the heterogeneity and dynamics of tissues, organisms, and complex diseases, but its analyses still suffer from multiple grand challenges, including the sequencing sparsity and complex differential patterns in gene expression. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2021-04-19
The prefrontal cortex (PFC) serves as the chief executive officer of the brain, controlling the highest level cognitive and emotional processes. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature communications·2021-02-15
Clinical trials of novel therapeutics for Alzheimer's Disease (AD) have consumed a large amount of time and resources with largely negative results. 1 key finding →
The association between hearing impairment and dementia has emerged as a major public health challenge, with significant opportunities for earlier diagnosis, treatment and prevention. 1 key finding →
Although there was no difference in the microbial α-diversity among the three groups, patients with AD or MCI had increased β-diversity compared with healthy controls. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2021-02-11
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25) and neurogranin (Ng) are recently described biomarkers for pre- and postsynaptic integrity known to be elevated in symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2021-10-26
Over the next 25 years, the prevalence of dementia in people older than 65 years is projected to exceed 25% nationwide, including metropolitan areas. 1 key finding →
There is an urgent need for objective markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related cognitive impairment in people with Down syndrome (DS) to improve diagnosis, monitor disease progression, and assess response to disease-modifying therapies. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2021-09-16
Adults with Down syndrome (DS) have an exceptionally high frequency of Alzheimer disease (AD) with a wide variability in onset, from 40 to 70 years of age. 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.