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 17,226–17,250 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 690 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.
Amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles containing phosphorylated tau protein are major hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Advances in amyloid targeting therapies (ATT) for Alzheimer's disease have introduced new options, necessitating an understanding of physicians' perspectives as these therapies move from trials to practice. 1 key finding →
On 22 May 2025, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced that the anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody donanemab (Eli Lilly, Kisunla) was approved in Australia for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (MABs) have introduced a new era of Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapeutics with disease-targeted drugs. 2 key findings →
Based on "reducing amyloid plaques in the brain", the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated and full approval for two monoclonal anti-Alzheimer's antibodies, aducanumab and lecanemab, respectively. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia, which is characterized by a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that is extremely difficult to treat and severely reduces quality of life. 2 key findings →
Solanezumab produced statistically significant increases in CSF total Aβ isoforms versus placebo, which correlated with CSF solanezumab concentration. 4 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder, and for providers the term AD is often avoided, favoring generic terms like memory loss or dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·EMBO reports·2024-10-23
The recent rejection of lecanemab by the European Medicines Agency despite its approval in other countries highlights the debate among researchers and regulatory bodies about the efficacy, safety, and underlying scientific basis of drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. [Image: see text] 1 key finding →
Aducanumab, an anti-amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease, efficiently reduces Aβ, though its plaque clearance mechanisms, long-term effects, and effects of discontinuation are not fully understood. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease is a major cause of dementia, that affects approximately 7-8% of people aged 65 years and older (according to WHO & Alzheimer's Disease International) and thus is a major concern in public health world-wide. 5 key findings →
The approval of lecanemab by the US Food and Drug Administration has been touted as a defining moment in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
The introduction of anti-amyloid antibodies has ushered in a new era in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), coinciding with the revision of its diagnostic criteria, which now focus on the biological definition of AD, with amyloid beta at its core. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is pathologically characterized by deposition of amyloid plaques (comprising amyloid β [Aβ] protein) and neurofibrillary tangles (comprising tau protein), and neuronal death. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a type of neurodegenerative illness in which β-amyloid (Aβ) and tau protein accumulate in neurons in the form of tangles. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Immunity·2025-01-14
Ischemic stroke and vascular cognitive impairment, caused by a sudden arterial occlusion or more subtle but protracted vascular insufficiency, respectively, are leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with limited therapeutic options. 4 key findings →
CAA-ri gains increasing interest as a spontaneous human model of iatrogenic edematous amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA-E) in the context of amyloid-modifying therapies. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), referred to as a type of dementia, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease with cognitive decline and key features comprising extracellular amyloid-β(Aβ) and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles. 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 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.