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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,451–1,475 of 2,047 studies published 2026(page 59 of 82)· 27,380 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; 12,859 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.
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-16
EA ameliorated cognitive impairment in APP/PS1 mice by enhancing TREM2⁺ microglia-mediated Aβ clearance and suppressing neuroinflammation. scRNA-seq further revealed that EA reshaped microglial transcriptional states and intercellular communication networks in a TREM2-dependent manner. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-11
Nasu-Hakola disease (NHD), a dementia with about 200 cases worldwide, is caused by loss-of-function mutation of TYROBP , encoding DAP12, or its receptor TREM2 . 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-06
Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) studies of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) mouse models have proliferated across independent laboratories, brain regions, and platforms, yet the cross-study reproducibility of transcriptional signatures derived from such data remains underexplored. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-20
Microglia are key drivers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and TREM2, one of the strongest genetic risk factors, enables the disease-associated microglia (DAM) state required for plaque engagement. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-14
Microglial activation in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) requires Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) redistribution into cholesterol- and sphingolipid-rich membrane domains, yet the lipid determinants of this process remain unclear. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-08-24
MS4A4A was higher in M2 (IL-4) than in M1 (IFN-γ + LPS) macrophages in all three donors (log2 fold change +2.68, adjusted P = 0.0013). 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-07-31
Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is characterized by marked biological heterogeneity, only partly explained by the frequent presence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) copathology. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-07-23
The Alzheimer’s disease (AD) brain is characterized by dysregulated expression of multiple microRNAs (miRNA), positioning them as promising diagnostic and therapeutic targets. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-07-20
Immunoproteasome induction is prominent in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but whether it protects proteostasis or amplifies neuroinflammation remains unresolved. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-07-06
Protein misfolding and aggregation, including amyloid fibril formation, underlie a large class of human diseases including prominent neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-30
This work suggests that although parity history and PSEN2 deficiency exert individual differing age-related effects on cognition and neurobiology, they do not act synergistically. 1 key finding →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-24
Familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) mutations in amyloid precursor protein (APP) alter amyloid-β (Aβ) secretion profiles, but their effects on neuronal protein and lipid homeostasis remain incompletely understood. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-19
These findings identify conserved regulatory networks that may contribute to female-biased microglial responses to AD pathology across mice and humans. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-14
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is accompanied by profound cerebrovascular dysfunction, yet it remains unclear whether endothelial abnormalities reflect only vascular injury or altered regulatory states connecting vascular remodeling with metabolic and immune function. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-14
These integrated findings support H. erinaceus as a candidate adjunct to donepezil, with possible complementary effects on amyloidogenic processing and intracellular clearance. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-14
Based on the exacerbated AD pathological features and transcriptomic alterations observed in Arf4 knockdown animals, ARF4 appears to play a critical role in AD resilience and may represent a potential prognostic factor worthy of further investigation. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-06
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and both conditions are associated with impaired glucose metabolism and mitochondrial dysfunction. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-06
Realising PCC in YOD requires not only identifying individual needs and appropriate care components, but also ongoing alignment of changing needs, expectations, timing, and responsibilities across the care trajectory. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-27
Intracellular neurofibrillary tangles formed from hyperphosphorylated tau and extracellular amyloid plaques containing aggregated Aβ-peptides, specific cleavage products of the Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP), are the primary histopathological hallmarks of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia in humans. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-22
Drugs that target APP have already been developed for AD and our data suggests they offer an exciting opportunity for repurposing in the treatment of prostate cancer. 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.