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 12,651–12,675 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 507 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature communications·2025-07-10
Synaptic loss strongly correlates with cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet the mechanism linking its origin and pattern remain unclear. 2 key findings →
Differences in the stability of Aβ42 and p-tau217 may lead to altered p-tau217/Aβ42 ratio results if samples are not handled properly during the pre-analytical testing phase. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive irreversible neurodegenerative disorder that represents a major global public health concern. 1 key finding →
This nFC-based assay accurately distinguishes MCI and AD plasma without EV isolation, offering a rapid approach requiring minute sample volumes. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are intertwined by mixed dementia (MD) harboring varying degrees of AD pathology in combination with cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →
Our data indicate that neuroinflammation is linked to the symptomatic phase of ALS/FTD and shows a similar pattern in sporadic and genetic cases. 3 key findings →
The proteins that are found to be altered in the CSF of patients with AD could be used for monitoring disease progression and therapeutic response and perhaps also for early detection once they are validated in larger studies. 3 key findings →
The data derived from this patient cohort demonstrate the safety and tolerability of sustained NGF release by a second-generation NGF-ECB implant to the basal forebrain, with uneventful surgical implant and removal of NGF-ECB implants in a new dosing cohort of four patients with AD. 2 key findings →
The combination of the CSF biomarkers T-tau, Aβ40 and MCP-1 separates iNPH from cognitive and movement disorders with good diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 1 key finding →
Concentrations of Aβ 40 and Aβ 42 were much higher in adults with DS than in other groups, reflecting APP gene triplication, while no difference in the Aβ 42 /Aβ 40 ratio between those with DS and sAD may indicate similar processing and deposition of Aβ 40 and Aβ 42 in these groups. 4 key findings →
We conclude that the Aβ 37/42 ratio sensitively detects presenilin/γ-secretase dysfunction and better distinguishes CN from AD than Aβ42/40 in CSF. 2 key findings →
The measurement of plasma Aβ peptides with an immunological assay can be improved by preconcentration via immunoprecipitation with an antibody against the Aβ amino-terminus and elution of the captured peptides by heating in a mild detergent-containing buffer. 3 key findings →
A highly robust assay for repeatedly measuring Abeta forms in plasma such as INNO-BIA plasma Abeta forms might be a useful tool in a future risk assessment of AD. 3 key findings →
This study suggests that the level of Aβ38 can potentially contribute in the diagnostic distinction between AD and DLB when combined with Aβ42. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature aging·2025-02-12
The Aβ 42 /Aβ 40 ratio in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and the concentrations of neurofilament light (NfL) and total tau (t-tau) are changed in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) 1 , but their neurobiological correlates are not entirely understood. 2 key findings →
Insufficient amyloid marker test repeatability may result either from imperfection of the used laboratorial techniques or inadequate selection of control groups with their comorbidities. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Brain connectivity·2020-11-23
Glucose hypometabolism in temporoparietal lobes was significantly associated with altered EEG functional connectivity of the same regions of interest in clinically diagnosed MCI and AD patients and in patients with biomarker-verified AD pathology. 5 key findings →
This study confirms strong concordance between CSF biomarkers and PET Aβ-amyloid status is independent of immunoassay platform, supporting their utility as biomarkers in clinical practice for the diagnosis of AD and for participant enrichment in clinical trials. 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 28,180 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.