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
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 8,976–9,000 of 15,839 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 360 of 634)· 28,580 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; 14,058 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.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is pathologically characterized by a long progressive phase of neuronal changes, including accumulation of extracellular amyloid-β (Aβ) and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles, before the onset of observable symptoms. 5 key findings →
Significant differences between platelet characteristics from AD patients and HC at the time of first clinical diagnosis were observed. 5 key findings →
The program would generate per-person value of $53,721 from a payer (reduction of direct cost and patient QALY gains) and $69,861 from a societal perspective (adding valuation of reduced caregiver burden). 3 key findings →
Mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and stroke (MELAS) is a mitochondrial genetic disorder caused by a point mutation, resulting in the substitution of guanine for adenine at nucleotide 3243 (A3243G). 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the gradual loss of neurons and the accumulation of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →
The current findings implicate ADAMTS4 in both the pathological process of Aβ peptide aggregation and in the early detection of amyloid pathology in AD. 2 key findings →
It can be concluded that COX-2 protein can serve as a potential blood-based biomarker for early detection and can be a good platform for therapeutic intervention for AD. 2 key findings →
Given the importance of early diagnosis of AD patients, it was suggested that the measurement of plasma levels and also mRNA expression of BACE1 might be a valuable blood-based biomarker used in preference to other invasive diagnostic methods such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·ACS sensors·2025-09-08
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder primarily characterized by cognitive decline and behavioral impairments, typically manifesting in the elderly and presenile population. 2 key findings →
In spite of having a well-resourced health system, Germany is projected to be unable to cope with the demand for biomarker-based AD diagnosis, if a disease-modifying AD treatment were introduced. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Nature medicine·2012-11-25
The pathology of Alzheimer's disease has an inflammatory component that is characterized by upregulation of proinflammatory cytokines, particularly in response to amyloid-β (Aβ). 3 key findings →
Measurements of CSF AD biomarkers show large between-laboratory variability, likely caused by factors related to analytical procedures and the analytical kits. 1 key finding →
The choroid plexus (CP) forming the blood-cerebrospinal fluid (B-CSF) barrier is among the least studied structures of the central nervous system (CNS) despite its clinical importance. 5 key findings →
We identified Abeta1-40 and Abeta1-42 in lenses from people with and without Alzheimer's disease at concentrations comparable with brain, and Abeta1-40 in primary aqueous humour at concentrations comparable with cerebrospinal fluid. 1 key finding →
A number of emerging biomarkers are able to measure synapse injury and loss in the brain and may correlate with cognitive function in AD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2008-02-21
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has been proposed as a potential agent for Alzheimer's disease (AD) immunotherapy because it contains antibodies against beta-amyloid (Abeta). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Molecular brain·2019-03-28
A major barrier to the effective conduct of clinical trials of new drug candidates against Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to identifying patients for receiving future disease-modifying treatments is the limited capacity of the current health system to find and diagnose patients with early AD pathology. 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.