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 17,101–17,125 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 685 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.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease with a complex etiology influenced by confounding factors such as genetic polymorphisms, age, sex, and race. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Heliyon·2024-10-18
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of late-life dementia characterized by progressive neurodegeneration and brain deposition of amyloid-β (Aβ) and phosphorylated tau. 4 key findings →
The strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) is allelic variation of the APOE gene, with the following risk structure: ε4 > ε3 > ε2. 1 key finding →
β amyloid protein (Aβ)1-42 level from the APOE ε4 carrier group was significantly lower than that from the non-carrier group (p = 0.023), which was associated with worse cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common kind of dementia worldwide, is characterized by elevated levels of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide and hyperphosphorylated tau protein in the neurons. 3 key findings →
Increasing evidence suggests that the calcium-binding and proinflammatory protein S100A9 is an important player in neuroinflammation-mediated Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
The impact of apolipoprotein E (ApoE) isoforms on sporadic Alzheimer's disease has long been studied; however, the influences of apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) on healthy and pathological human brains are not fully understood. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2025-04-29
Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) variants are central to Alzheimer's disease (AD), Lewy body dementia (LBD) and Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Cell death discovery·2025-04-21
The ApoE-ε4 gene is a well-established genetic risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis, which are characterized by axonal demyelination in the central nervous system. 2 key findings →
Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4, the strongest genetic risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD), confers greater risk in females than males. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Angiogenesis·2024-09-14
Apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) plays an important role responding to monomeric C-reactive protein (mCRP) via binding to CD31 leading to cerebrovascular damage and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
The We and others have previously shown that polygenic risk score analysis (PRS) has considerable predictive utility for identifying those at high risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) with an area under the curve (AUC) of >0.8. 3 key findings →
Today, cognitive impairment can be successfully treated with acetylcholine esterase inhibitors (AChE-I) in many, but not all, patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Aging cell·2025-10-13
While preclinical studies suggest that Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibition may reduce cognitive impairment, findings from observational studies on whether PDE5 inhibitors reduce Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk have been inconsistent. 2 key findings →
The MR analysis conducted in this study found no statistically significant causal association between 20 dietary habits and the risk of AD (All p > 0.05). 4 key findings →
Transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) tools have been applied to conduct proteome-wide association studies (PWASs) by integrating proteomics data with genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary data. 2 key findings →
For decades, the study of genetically isolated populations has improved our understanding and management of genetic diseases that affect all populations. 5 key findings →
The molecules released into CSF, namely APOE2 for any dementia, APOE2 and Siglec-3 for AD, APOE2 for vascular dementia, and APOE2 for DLB, might be potential biomarkers. 3 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.