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 13,026–13,050 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 522 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 47 out of 100.·PloS one·2019-08-20
Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a clinical diagnosis but biomarkers from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and more lately amyloid imaging with positron emission tomography (PET), are important to support a diagnosis of AD. 4 key findings →
BackgroundAs the prevalence of Alzheimer disease (AD) rises, early identification of at-risk individuals is essential for effective intervention. 4 key findings →
This study was undertaken to compare the performance of plasma p-tau181 with that of [ 18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in the identification of early biological Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
There were 534 patients who underwent AD CSF biomarkers (Roche Elecsys Aβ42, p-Tau181, total-Tau) from April 1, 2020, through April 23, 2021. 4 key findings →
This study aims to assess the evolution of cognitive performances over a 5-year follow-up period in community-dwelling older people with negative plasma p-tau181 levels and to determine whether frailty could discriminate between those who experience cognitive decline and those who do not, in the p-tau negative groups. 4 key findings →
BackgroundAmyloid-negative tau-related neurodegeneration represents a non-Alzheimer biomarker-defined profile; however, its clinical heterogeneity and prognostic relevance remain unclear within Alzheimer's disease-related frameworks. 4 key findings →
Nearly a dozen monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against beta-amyloid (Aβ) have been developed for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD), and most of these mAbs are undergoing clinical trials. 4 key findings →
We developed a set of informant-based items describing performance of activities of daily living (ADL) by patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) to identify which ADL are useful for assessment of patients in clinical trials. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2006-03-29
Neurofibrillary degeneration in the nucleus basalis and a loss of its cortical cholinergic projections are prominent components of the neuropathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
[(11)C](R)PK11195-PET measures upregulation of translocator protein, which is associated with microglial activation, [(11)C]PIB-PET is a marker of amyloid, while [(18)F]FDG-PET measures cerebral glucose metabolism (rCMRGlc). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neuropsychologia·1995-12-01
We studied executive function and autobiographical memory in a cohort of 33 DAT patients [divided into minimal (MMSE 24-30) and mild (MMSE 17-23) groups] and in 30 normal controls. 4 key findings →
25 older individuals with MCI performed a visual scene encoding task during fMRI scanning, and were followed clinically for at least 4 years after scanning. 4 key findings →
The study is a validation study of two psychogeriatric depression rating scales, The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD). 4 key findings →
Recent studies indicate that there is a marked reduction in trkA-containing nucleus basalis neurons in end-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Although sarcopenia is closely linked to dementia, particularly Alzheimer disease (AD), there are few studies examining the prevalence and associated factors of sarcopenia in subjects with AD. 4 key findings →
The original validation study for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) suggests a cutoff score of 26; however, this may be too stringent for older adults, particularly for those with less education. 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 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.