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 17,076–17,100 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 684 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 43 out of 100.·PloS one·2020-03-16
Community-dwelling African American elders are twice as likely to develop mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's disease and related dementias than older white Americans and therefore represent a significant at-risk group in need of early monitoring. 5 key findings →
This paper introduces a new deep learning-assisted offline smartphone platform for early AD screening, offering rapid disease detection in low-resource areas. 5 key findings →
Amyloid beta 1-40 (Aβ 1-40) is one of the most abundant substances in the body with the capacity to form insoluble aggregates and is a universal biomarker for the prediction of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
In this study, we developed a newly designed μPAD for CL immunoassays, leveraging smartphone-based image capture, valve-regulated reaction process, and app-driven result analysis to enable fully automated detection. 5 key findings →
Computerized cognitive training (CCT) is a rapidly developing area of cognitive rehabilitation at the intersection of information technology and healthcare, the constantly updated results of which can be successfully translated into practical application in clinical medicine and in particular in gerontology. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Biosensors·2025-02-11
Monitoring and assessing the progression of symptoms in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, are critical for improving patient outcomes. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Neuron·2025-03-19
The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the strongest genetic risk modifier for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with the APOE4 allele increasing risk and APOE2 decreasing it compared with the common APOE3 allele. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Cell·2024-11-11
While apolipoprotein E (APOE) is the strongest genetic modifier for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), the molecular mechanisms underlying isoform-dependent risk and the relevance of ApoE-associated lipids remain elusive. 1 key finding →
The major genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD), APOE4, accelerates beta-amyloid (Aβ) plaque formation, but whether this is caused by APOE expressed in microglia or astrocytes is debated. 5 key findings →
Isogenic BMEC-like cells with different APOE genotypes had similar trans-endothelial electrical resistance, tight junction integrity and efflux transporter gene expression. 5 key findings →
Human apolipoprotein E (ApoE) was first identified as a polymorphic gene in the 1970s; however, the genetic association of ApoE genotypes with late-onset sporadic Alzheimer's disease (sAD) was only discovered 20 years later. 3 key findings →
In this narrative review, we delved into the intricate interplay between Apolipoprotein E (APOE) alleles (typically associated with Alzheimer's disease-AD) and alpha-synucleinopathies (aS-pathies), involving Parkinson's disease (PD), Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and multiple-system atrophy (MSA). 2 key findings →
A significant interaction between diabetes and APOE genotype exists, where diabetes affected cognitive decline in APOE3 carriers and APOE2 carriers, but not APOE4 carriers. 3 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) polymorphisms modify the risk of Alzheimer's disease with ApoE4 strongly increasing and ApoE2 modestly decreasing risk relative to the control ApoE3. 4 key findings →
Recent studies have supported a role for the proteolytic cleavage of apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) as a potential mechanism for the enhanced dementia risk associated with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
In the SAA-APP knock-in model of dense-cored Aβ deposits resulting from accumulation of protofibrillar-favoring Aβ42, we observed that crossing in human APOE reduced amyloid burden. 5 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.