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 1,126–1,150 of 1,428 studies scoring ≤ 29 out of 100 (page 46 of 58)· 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.
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-27
VU0155069 engages circuit- and pathological stage-specific forms of dendritic spine remodeling across distributed recognition- and associative-memory networks. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-23
While single-cell measurements of the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) brain allow investigation of vulnerable cells in unprecedented depth, reported findings are heterogeneous, mostly descriptive and often ignore interdependence of cellular responses. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-21
Transcriptomic and proteomic studies have consistently demonstrated substantial molecular heterogeneity across patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders, leading to the proposal of multiple disease subtypes. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-20
Individuals with comparable Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology can differ markedly in cognition, but the molecular nature of this heterogeneity remains unclear. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-12
TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is an RNA-binding protein whose low-complexity domain (LCD) mediates self-assembly, liquid-liquid phase separation, and pathological aggregation associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-13
The defining neuropathologic feature of Lewy body dementia (LBD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD) is alpha-synuclein (Asyn) fibril accumulation in Lewy bodies (LBs) and Lewy neurites (LNs). 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-10
Neuroinflammation is a hallmark of several chronic neurodegenerative disorders, including Parkinson’s disease (PD) and other synucleinopathies, and is closely associated with microglial activation. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-07
Neuroinflammation is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, which neuroinflammatory effectors are consistently altered across independent human cohorts, brain regions, and microglial states—and can be engaged by available compounds—remains incompletely defined. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-05
Scalable and accessible biomarkers of neurofibrillary tangle pathology are needed for Alzheimer’s disease prognosis, diagnosis and monitoring. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-28
While tau plays a role in regulating neuronal network excitability, a process thought to be dysregulated in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the molecular mechanisms linking tau and hyperexcitability remain unclear. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-21
Quantitative analysis of dendritic spine morphology is central to understanding synaptic function and its disruption in neurological disease, yet reliable measurement depends on accurate segmentation of spines from fluorescence microscopy images — a task still limited by faint or discontinuous spine necks and by tools that require extensive manual correction. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-19
ABCA7-KO iMGs were deficient for proteins involved in lysosome function, measured by down-regulated lysosomal proteomic signatures, as well as reduced DQ-BSA activity and reduced LAMP1+ area. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-03
Synapse loss is the strongest pathological correlate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease, yet the molecular basis of synaptic vulnerability across disease progression remains poorly understood. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-24
Physical exercise promotes systemic and neural adaptations that support healthy brain aging and may mitigate Alzheimer’s disease (AD) progression. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-16
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the deposition of amyloid-beta (Aβ) and microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) neurofibrillary tangles in the brain; however, the molecular mechanisms underlying associated synaptic dysfunction remain unclear. 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 27,780 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.