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 1,226–1,250 of 1,335 studies published 2020(page 50 of 54)· 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.
Although the basis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) etiology remains unknown, oxidative stress (OS) has been recognized as a prodromal factor associated to its progression. 5 key findings →
The endosomal-lysosomal pathways and related autophagic processes are responsible for proteostasis, involving complexes between lysosomes and autophagosomes. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive brain disorder characterized by memory loss and the accumulation of two insoluble protein aggregates, tau neurofibrillary tangles and beta-amyloid plaques. 1 key finding →
Tauopathies are a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative dementias involving perturbations in the levels, phosphorylation or mutations of the neuronal microtubule-binding protein Tau. 5 key findings →
Post-diagnostic care in young-onset dementia (YoD) varies, from something that is occasionally structured, to improvised, to frequently non-existent depending on geographic region. 5 key findings →
Phases 1 and 2 results facilitated targeted changes in BESI, thus improving its overall usability for the final phase of the study, when real-time notifications and interventions will be implemented. 2 key findings →
Despite a formal inpatient or outpatient classification, the residents living in AL facilities showed significantly higher values for well-being and showed significantly less agitated, challenging behavior compared to the nursing home. 4 key findings →
Alternative care environments for regular nursing homes are highly warranted to promote health and well-being of residents with dementia that are part of an age-friendly and dementia-friendly city and society. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Nursing older people·2020-12-09
Despite growing understanding in recent years of the biological, psychological, social, environmental and spiritual aspects of dementia, people with advanced dementia continue to experience inequalities in accessing healthcare capable of improving their lives. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Nursing older people·2020-07-15
Dementia is the leading cause of death in England and Wales, but traditionally it has not been considered a terminal or life-limiting condition. 3 key findings →
This study provides new insights into the regional binding distribution of a first-generation and a second-generation Tau tracer in limbic and neocortical regions in adults with DS, as well as regional differences in Tau binding in adult with DS vs. those with AD. 5 key findings →
Down syndrome (DS), the most common cause of intellectual disability of genetic origin, is characterized by alterations in central nervous system morphology and function that appear from early prenatal stages. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Life sciences·2020-06-27
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia worldwide. β-amyloid peptide (Aβ) is currently assumed to be the main cause of synaptic dysfunction and cognitive impairments in AD, but the molecular signaling pathways underlying its neurotoxic consequences have not yet been completely explored. 1 key finding →
It is increasingly accepted that early cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease results in considerable part from synaptic dysfunction caused by the accumulation of a range of oligomeric assemblies of amyloid β-protein (Aβ). 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by an asymptomatic period of amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition as insoluble extracellular plaque, intracellular tau aggregation, neuronal and synaptic loss, and subsequent cognitive dysfunction and dementia. 2 key findings →
The apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) ε4 allele is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease mainly by driving amyloid-β 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 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.