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 19,201–19,225 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 769 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.
Reliable quantitative blood biomarkers are important in vascular dementia (VaD) because early diagnosis and therapeutic intervention are effective in preventing progression of dementia. 1 key finding →
A timely diagnosis of frontotemporal degeneration (FTD) is frequently challenging due to the heterogeneous symptomatology and poor phenotype-pathological correlation. 1 key finding →
Mass spectrometry (MS)-based protein identification via MALDI ToF/ToF showed that fibrinogen-β-chain (spot 64) and fibrinogen-γ-chain (spot 91) with differential expression ratio >1.5 were significantly upregulated (p < 0.05) in AD patients when compared to non-AD individuals. 5 key findings →
With emerging amyloid therapies, documentation of the patient's amyloid status to confirm the etiology of a clinical diagnosis is warranted prior to instituting amyloid-based therapy. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurological condition that affects millions of individuals around the world and for which there are few effective therapies. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) develops into dementia over a period of several years, during which subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) can be used as intermediary diagnoses of increasing severity. 4 key findings →
For many years Alzheimer's disease (AD) was associated with the dementia stage of the disease, the tail end of a pathophysiological process that lasts approximately two decades. 1 key finding →
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a neurological syndrome characterized by the clinical triad of gait disorder, cognitive impairment and urinary incontinence. 5 key findings →
During the past ten years, over 5,000 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were analyzed at the Reference Center for Biological Markers of Dementia (BIODEM), UAntwerp, for core Alzheimer's disease (AD) CSF biomarkers: amyloid-β peptide of 42 amino acids (Aβ1-42), total tau protein (T-tau), and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (P-tau181P). 1 key finding →
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a prevalent and complex condition among older adults that often progresses into Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
CSF α-synuclein levels were higher in AD patients as compared with cognitively healthy controls (P=.019) and patients with synucleinopathies (P<.001). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Molecular psychiatry·2003-03
Early clinical symptoms of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) may overlap with other neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal degeneration (FTD). 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·2016-06-01
We hypothesized that one mechanism underlying the association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and Alzheimer's disease is OSA leading to decreased slow wave activity (SWA), increased synaptic activity, decreased glymphatic clearance, and increased amyloid-β. 1 key finding →
The One Card Learning Test (OCL80) from the Cogstate Brief Battery-a digital cognitive test used both in-person and remotely in clinical trials and in healthcare contexts to inform health decisions-has shown high sensitivity to changes in memory in early Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
The AD group performed significantly lower on the associative learning (p = 0.01) and associative memory assessments (p = 0.002), than the HC and AR groups. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive, multifactorial, chronic, neurodegenerative disease with high prevalence and limited therapeutic options, making it a global health crisis. 5 key findings →
Exploratory factor analysis revealed the orientation/spatial cognitive function (orientation and spatial cognition) and attention/executive function (attention, memory, and execution) factors. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Nanoscale·2021-01-21
Herein, combined with a pervasive smartphone installed with a color recognition app, dual-responsive CDs@Eu/GMP ICPs were designed as a red-to-blue paper-based colorimetric sensor for the point-of-use analysis of cerebral acetylcholinesterase (AChE) upon Cd2+ exposure. 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.