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 14,576–14,600 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 584 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 45 out of 100.·Brain research·1990-04-01
To investigate the role of proteolysis in amyloid formation, we studied the localization of the proteolytic enzymes, cathepsin D and cathepsin B, in the prefrontal cerebral cortex and hippocampus of human postmortem brains from patients with Alzheimer's disease and from individuals free of neurological disease. 4 key findings →
Copper and zinc play important roles in Alzheimer disease pathology with recent reports describing potential therapeutics based on modulation of metal bioavailability. 4 key findings →
The Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein (APP) undergoes complex processing resulting in the production of a 4-kDa amyloid peptide (A beta) which has been implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer disease (AD), the most common senile dementia, is characterized by amyloid plaques, vascular amyloid, neurofibrillary tangles, and progressive neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Phorbol esters, activators of protein kinase C (PKC), regulate the relative utilization of alternative processing pathways for the Alzheimer beta-amyloid precursor protein (beta-APP) in intact cells, increasing the production of nonamyloidogenic soluble beta-APP (s beta-APP) and decreasing that of neurotoxic beta-amyloid (A beta) peptide. 3 key findings →
It has long been assumed that β-amyloid (Aβ) had to assemble into fibrillar amyloid plaques to exert its neurotoxic effects in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Accumulating evidence suggests that some dietary patterns, specifically high fat diet (HFD), increase the risk of developing sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
The amyloid β (Aβ) peptide, which is abundantly found in the brains of patients suffering from Alzheimer disease, is central in the pathogenesis of this disease. 4 key findings →
We have recently shown acetylation of tau at lysine residue 280 (AC-K280) to be a disease-specific modification in Alzheimer disease (AD), corticobasal degeneration, and progressive supranuclear palsy, likely representing a major regulatory tau modification. 4 key findings →
Stimulation of muscarinic m1 or m3 receptors can, by generating diacylglycerol and activating protein kinase C, accelerate the breakdown of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) to form soluble, nonamyloidogenic derivatives (APPs), as previously shown. 4 key findings →
Processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) by γ-secretase results in generation of Aβ peptides of different lengths ranging from 51 to 30 residues. 4 key findings →
A chronic and gradual increase in pulse pressure (PP) is associated with cognitive decline and dementia in older individuals, but the mechanisms remain ill-defined. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·JAMA neurology·2016-07-01
Observations Genotype-phenotype correlations of AD are presented to provide a comprehensive appreciation of the spectrum of disease causation. 4 key findings →
Despite increasing evidence for a pathogenetic role for the beta-amyloid precursor protein (beta APP) in Alzheimer disease, the physiological function of the protein remains unclear. 4 key findings →
Eight antisera and one monoclonal antibody to synthetic peptides that corresponded to domains extending over the entire length of the beta-amyloid precursor protein (beta-APP), and an antiserum to the full-length 695-amino acid form of the beta-APP, were raised to probe the composition of the core and corona of senile plaques (SPs). 4 key findings →
Accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ), believed to be a key trigger of Alzheimer disease (AD), could result from impaired clearance mechanisms. 4 key findings →
The amino acid sequence of amyloid precursor protein (APP) is highly conserved, and age-related A beta aggregates have been described in a variety of vertebrate animals, with the notable exception of mice and rats. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neurology·2014-10-01
This article discusses why CSF biomarkers found in normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) can be misleading when distinguishing NPH from comorbid NPH with Alzheimer disease (AD). 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.