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
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 12,776–12,800 of 16,727 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 512 of 670)· 29,780 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; 15,255 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 38 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2017-06-20
The need for a reliable, simple, and inexpensive blood test for Alzheimer's disease (AD) suitable for use in a primary care setting is widely recognized. 3 key findings →
The establishment of a molecular biomarker for early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical for diagnosis and follow up of patients, and as a quantitative parameter in the evaluation of potential new drugs to control AD. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Der Nervenarzt·2020-09-01
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is characterized by cognitive deficits but essentially preserved competence in activities of daily living. 1 key finding →
In older patients, typical clinical symptoms and blood test changes were often absent; however, CT always contained typical findings of COVID-19, suggesting that CT may be a useful diagnostic tool. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Neuroscience research·2019-01-12
The search for a blood-based biomarker that identifies Alzheimer's disease (AD) and can replace current invasive and expensive diagnostic tests, continues. 2 key findings →
With the increasing number of people living with Alzheimer's disease (AD), there is a need for low-cost and easy to use methods to detect AD early to facilitate access to appropriate care pathways. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Autophagy·2018-01-15
The autophagy-lysosome pathway (ALP) regulates intracellular homeostasis of the cytosolic protein SNCA/alpha-synuclein and is impaired in synucleinopathies, including Parkinson disease and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 3 key findings →
Circulating microRNAs (cimiRNAs) are a class of non-encoding RNAs found in bodily fluids such as blood, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and tears. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Autophagy·2019-06-28
Here, we found that overexpression of human wild-type full-length MAPT, which models MAPT pathologies as seen in sporadic AD patients, induced autophagy deficits via repression of autophagosome-lysosome fusion leading to significantly increased LC3 (microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3)-II and SQSTM1/p62 (sequestosome 1) protein levels with autophagosome accumulation. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Assessment·2017-12-18
This study aimed to develop a psychometrically valid touch screen tablet-based cognitive test battery to identify early cognitive impairment due to dementia in older adults. 4 key findings →
The hippocampus is closely tied to spatial navigation, a central component in cognitive functioning, and critically involved in age-associated cognitive decline and dementia. 1 key finding →
According to the existing literature, subjecting patients to various neuro-rehabilitative conditions within 3D virtual environments, allows them to obtain significant therapeutic benefits in which both transferability and durations over time are observed, in relation to the training period of the intervention. 5 key findings →
Early reviews identified over 20 risk factors associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) including age, familial inheritance, exposure to aluminium, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and associated co-morbidities such as vascular disease and infection. 2 key findings →
Dysfunction of cell bioenergetics is a common feature of neurodegenerative diseases, the most common of which is Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100.·Cell reports·2020-09-01
Gene and protein expression data provide useful resources for understanding brain function, but little is known about the lipid composition of the brain. 5 key findings →
Among the LDL receptor (LDLR) family members, the roles of LDLR-related protein (LRP)1 in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), especially late-onset AD, have been the most studied by genetic, neuropathological, and biomarker analyses (clinical studies) or cellular and animal model systems (preclinical studies) over the last 25 years. 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%),
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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.