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 776–800 of 1,097 studies published 2023(page 32 of 44)· 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neuropsychology·2023-11-16
Multiday BRANCH is a feasible, reliable, and valid cognitive measure that may be useful for identifying subtle changes in learning and memory processes in older adults. 1 key finding →
Patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) can now be treated with monoclonal antibodies aiming at clearing amyloid plaques from the brain parenchyma. 5 key findings →
To simply and rapidly detect the highly phosphorylated tau protein at threonine 217 (p-tau217) as a precautionary measure against Alzheimer's disease and distinguish it from other neurodegenerative diseases, a novel immunosensor was prepared using luminol as the electrochemiluminescent (ECL) sensing probe reinforced by Au-Cu nanoparticles (Au-Cu NPs). 1 key finding →
The number of elderly dogs is increasing significantly worldwide, and many elderly dogs develop canine cognitive dysfunction syndrome (CCDS). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2023-08-24
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the accumulation of Aβ plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, resulting in synaptic loss and neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →
High diagnostic sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for Aβ-PET positivity were observed, consistent with the clinical performance of other plasma LC-MS/MS assays, but with greater separation between Aβ42/40 values for individuals with positive vs negative Aβ-PET results. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Aging brain·2023-06-21
Amyloid-beta (Aβ) is produced from amyloid precursor protein (APP) primarily after APP is internalised by endocytosis and clathrin-mediated endocytic processes are altered in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
The neurogranin concentration was higher in improved (68%) compared to unimproved patients (median 365 ng/L (IQR 186-544) vs 330 (205-456); p = 0.046). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Brain sciences·2023-11-15
The aim of the present study is the evaluation of established Alzheimer's disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH), both individually and as a total profile, and the investigation of their use as potential predictors of Tap-test responsiveness. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2023-07-22
Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein significantly correlated with cognitive function tests, including all subdomains, with a notable increase in the PDD group compared with the HC and PDND groups, while plasma neurofilament light chain captured both cognitive decline and disease severity in the PDND and PDD groups. 3 key findings →
Exploratory factor analysis revealed the orientation/spatial cognitive function (orientation and spatial cognition) and attention/executive function (attention, memory, and execution) factors. 5 key findings →
The Apolipoprotein E ε4 (ApoE ε4) allele, encoding ApoE4, is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD). 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Cancer research·2023-09-15
APOE germline variants impact melanoma progression through disparate mechanisms, such as the protein synthesis-promoting function of the APOE2 variant, indicating that germline genetic variants are causal contributors to metastatic outcomes. 2 key findings →
Obesity was associated with cognitive decline in early elderly cognitively normal individuals without APOE4, especially those with APOE2. 5 key findings →
The ε4-allele variant of apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, although it only differs from its neutral counterpart ApoE3 by a single amino acid substitution. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neuron·2023-04-10
Aberrant low γ-secretase activity is associated with most of the presenilin mutations that underlie familial Alzheimer's disease (fAD). 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.