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
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 976–1,000 of 1,362 studies published 2022(page 40 of 55)· 27,780 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; 13,259 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 42 out of 100.·Healthcare·2022-04-15
This study aims to analyze the relationship between cognitive function and out-of-pocket cost of the state change of multiple chronic conditions in individuals aged 60 or older. 3 key findings →
A total of 321 people with cirrhosis (60 years, 78% men, 75% non-Hispanic White, 24% non-Hispanic African American, 4% Hispanic) were included. 45% had prior HE and 56% MHE. 5 key findings →
The Hong Kong Grocery Shopping Dialog Task (HK-GSDT) is a short and easy-to-administer cognitive test developed for quickly screening neurocognitive disorders (NCDs). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100.·Biomolecules·2022-03-16
Tau aggregates accumulate in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) brain according to the established Braak staging scheme and spread from transentorhinal over limbic regions to the neocortex. 5 key findings →
Quantification of in vivo amyloid and tau PET imaging relationships with postmortem measurements are critical for validating the sensitivity and specificity imaging biomarkers across clinical phenotypes with Alzheimer disease neuropathologic change (ADNC). 3 key findings →
This is one of the first formal studies to evaluate research attitudes among relatives of individuals with DS and shows the feasibility of using this approach to answer important questions that will guide trialists developing treatments for AD in DS. 1 key finding →
Recent published clinical trial safety data showed that 41% of Alzheimer patients experienced amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), marks of microhemorrhages and edema in the brain, following administration of Biogen's Aduhelm/aducanumab (amino acids 3-7 of the Aβ peptide). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·BMC geriatrics·2022-12-01
The overall design-oriented need referred to clear situation classifications including urgent care (fall- and wandering detection), non-urgent care (deviations in eating, drinking, sleeping), and future care (risk predictions). 2 key findings →
The results of the present study suggest that increased 18 F-THK5351 uptake might be a useful predictor of poor prognosis among Aβ- aMCI patients, which might be associated with increased neuroinflammation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02656498). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Practical neurology·2022-03-17
Although cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker testing is incorporated into some current guidelines for the diagnosis of dementia (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)), it is not widely accessible for most patients for whom biomarkers could potentially change management. 1 key finding →
Aberrant cleavage of amyloid precursor protein (APP) by γ-secretase is closely associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). γ-secretase activating protein (GSAP) specifically promotes γ-secretase–mediated cleavage of APP. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2022-03-02
Microbial flora is investigated to be related with neuropathological conditions in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and is attracting attention as a drug discovery resource. 3 key findings →
The analysis revealed decreased Aβ42 levels and increased Aβ42/40 ratios in elderly patients with depression at admission compared with healthy subjects. 5 key findings →
The number of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and non-Alzheimer's disease (non-AD) has drastically increased over recent decades. 5 key findings →
Presenilin 1 (PS1) is a central component of γ-secretase, an enzymatic complex involved in the generation of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide that deposits as plaques in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) brain. 2 key findings →
Firstly, we analyzed two microarray datasets related to AD (GSE48552, GSE129053) to identify the differentially expressed miRNAs, and two miRNAs were selected for further validation. 5 key findings →
The recent academic and commercial development, and regulatory approvals, of blood-based Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers are breakthrough developments of immense potential. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%),
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.