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
29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,326–1,350 of 16,388 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 54 of 656)· 29,380 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; 14,855 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.
33 Chinese- and 117 English-speaking older adults who received a diagnosis of normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment at consensus were included in the data analysis. 5 key findings →
Reduced speed and reduced smoothness in speed and pressure were observed particularly in the LBD group, while increased pauses and total durations were observed in both the AD and LBD groups. 3 key findings →
In MCI subjects, the NCPT composite is significantly correlated with both a composite measure of established tests (r = 0.78, p < 0.0001) as well as with the ADAS-Cog (r = -0.55, p < 0.0001). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·NPJ digital medicine·2022-03-21
Mobile-health applications can be used to deliver timely and personalized health information to family and friends of chronically ill adults living in the community. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·BMC neurology·2022-12-07
The median (interquartile range) test time for MARC was 401 (350-453) s. Total MARC scores were significantly worse in the MCI and ADD groups than in the NDC group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). 5 key findings →
By incorporating sex, place of residence, age, and years of education as covariates, the TabCAT-BHA demonstrated greater accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment (AUC = 75.3%) compared to the MMSE (AUC = 66.4%) and RUDAS (AUC = 71.4%). 3 key findings →
Pericytes are critical for maintaining blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity and have emerged as key contributors to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2017-07-20
Functional phenotypes (e.g., subcortical surface representation), which commonly arise in imaging genetic studies, have been used to detect putative genes for complexly inherited neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. 2 key findings →
Brain iron accumulation, which is indicated in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) ferritin, is associated with the development of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Acta neuropathologica·2022-09-16
Alzheimer's disease (AD) has multiple clinically and pathologically defined subtypes where the underlying causes of such heterogeneity are not well established. 5 key findings →
We identified a novel mutation c.401_406delinsTCTAT; p.(Asp134Valfs*55) in exon 3 of TREM2 in an Alzheimer's disease patient also carrying the p.Arg62His TREM2 variant. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Nature communications·2026-01-24
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a central regulator of microglial activity and loss-of-function coding variants are major risk factors for late onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2026-03-06
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a cell surface transmembrane receptor from the TREM receptor family, predominantly expressed on the microglia in the central nervous system (CNS). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2014-02-20
Mutations of 3 causative genes, namely presenilin 1 (PSEN1), presenilin 2 (PSEN2), and amyloid precursor protein (APP), have been identified as the major causes of early-onset familial Alzheimer's disease (EOFAD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2026-03-21
Microglia are central mediators of neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet conserved microglial states and activation trajectories across AD mouse models remain incompletely defined. 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%),
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.
1,037 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.