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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 15,901–15,925 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 637 of 692)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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.
Although in the last decade brain activation in healthy aging and dementia was mainly studied using task-activation fMRI, there is increasing interest in task-induced decreases in brain activity, termed deactivations. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by progressive cognitive decline and neuropathological changes, including the deposition of amyloid beta (Abeta) in senile plaques. 1 key finding →
A relationship between the apolipoprotein E (apoE) genotype and the risk to develop Alzheimer's disease has been established recently. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuroreport·1999-06-01
Addition of the beta-hydroxy-beta-methylglutaryl-CoA (HmG-CoA) reductase inhibitor lovastatin to human HEK cells transfected with the amyloid precursor protein (APP) reduces intracellular cholesterol/protein ratios by 50%, and markedly inhibits beta-secretase cleavage of newly-synthesized APP. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·NeuroImage·2010-03-01
In a genome-wide association study of structural brain degeneration, we mapped the 3D profile of temporal lobe volume differences in 742 brain MRI scans of Alzheimer's disease patients, mildly impaired, and healthy elderly subjects. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a highly heritable disease (with heritability up to 76%) with a complex genetic profile of susceptibility, among which large genome-wide association studies (GWASs) pointed to the phosphatidylinositol-binding clathrin assembly protein (PICALM) gene as a susceptibility locus for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) incidence. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is a complex and progressive neurodegenerative disease leading to loss of memory, cognitive impairment, and ultimately death. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Gene·2014-05-15
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia in the elderly and represents an important and increasing clinical challenge in terms of diagnosis and treatment. 2 key findings →
Over the past decade, research aiming to disentangle the genetic underpinnings of late-onset Alzheimer's disease has mostly focused on the identification of common variants through genome-wide association studies. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by dementia and abnormal deposits of aggregated amyloid-β in the brain. 5 key findings →
The recent discoveries in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of novel susceptibility loci (CLU, CR1 and PICALM) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have elicited considerable interest in the AD community. 1 key finding →
The discovery of genes implicated in familial forms of Parkinson's disease (PD) has provided new insights into the molecular events leading to neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuroscience letters·2013-10-18
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have implicated a series of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk. 2 key findings →
Most forms of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are sporadic (sAD) or inherited in a non-Mendelian fashion, and less than 1% of cases are autosomal-dominant. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most frequent cause of dementia in the elderly and represents an important and increasing clinical challenge in terms of diagnosis and treatment. 5 key findings →
The importance of the complement system in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis has been emphasized through recent genome wide association studies. 2 key findings →
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) promise a significant impact on the understanding of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) as the genetic components have been estimated to account for 60-80% of the disease. 2 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% 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.