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 9,726–9,750 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 390 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.
[ 18 F]PSS232 PET can quantify the changes of mGluR5 availability in the progression of AD. mGluR5 availability correlated not only with neuropathological biomarkers of AD but also with neurodegenerative biomarkers and cognitive performance. mGluR5 may be a novel neurodegenerative biomarker, and whether mGluR5 could be a potential therapeutic target for AD needs to be further studied. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2024-04-20
To investigate the association between serum neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, inflammatory cytokines, and cognitive function to assess their utility in the early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Journal of neurology·2022-03-14
Plasma NfL levels might be a promising biomarker for neurodegeneration to discriminate cognitive decline due to AD from other conditions causing cognitive impairment in prodromal stages. 1 key finding →
For the purpose of studying the potential neurobehavioral effects of different human apolipoprotein E (apoE) isoforms produced within the brain, transgenic (TG) mice were generated in which human apoE3 or apoE4 isoforms were under control of an astrocyte-specific, glial fibrillary acidic protein promoter and these TG mice were bred back to apoE knockout (KO) mice. 5 key findings →
We examined 204 decedents of the autopsy component of the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study, a longitudinal cohort study, who had been clinically assessed for dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2020-09-14
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aβ) deposits, which come in myriad morphologies with varying clinical relevance. 5 key findings →
For the CSF-based definition of preclinical AD, if a high specificity is required, our data support the use of Aβ42/ttau rather than using Aβ42 in isolation. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2011-06-01
These results suggest that some SAD may involve alternative processing of multiple γ-secretase substrates, raising the possibility that the molecular pathogenesis of SAD might involve γ-secretase dysfunction. 2 key findings →
We also explored economic viability of using two different plasma amyloid assays for pre-screening in AD prevention trials and as routine clinical diagnostic tool, versus amyloid PET alone. 4 key findings →
Our current results reconfirm and extend the conclusions of the previously published report that the Erlangen Score is a useful tool facilitating interpretation of a complex pattern of the CSF AD biomarkers. 5 key findings →
This study provides evidence that CSF metabolites are associated with AD-related pathology, and many of these associations may be causal. 5 key findings →
A newly developed SV2A radiotracer, 18 F-SynVesT-1, was used in this study to investigate synaptic density and its association with Alzheimer's disease (AD) "A/T/N" biomarkers. 2 key findings →
Our findings indicate that tau pathology may play a critical role in pathological angiogenesis, contributing to cerebrovascular lesions and neurodegeneration in AD. 4 key findings →
Our results confirmed the diagnostic performance of individual plasma biomarkers Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, NfL, and GFAP in Chinese dementia patients and noted that a combination of these biomarkers may be more accurate in identifying FTD/PSP patients and distinguishing AD from non-AD dementia. 2 key findings →
The ratio Aβ42/Aβ40 showed the highest discriminating capacity between AD and non-AD patients and might be useful in clinical practice. 3 key findings →
Individuals with SCD had an altered cortical surface area, and APOE genotype and anxiety symptoms are modified factors on the cortical surface area decrease in SCD. 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.