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
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 2,001–2,025 of 3,821 studies published 2025(page 81 of 153)· 27,380 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; 12,859 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.
During a median follow-up of 13.68 years, 4744 incident all-cause dementia (ACD) events (including 3013 Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 853 vascular dementia (VaD)) were recorded. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·BMC Medicine·2025-08-19
Both the higher parental dementia instrument and participant genetic instrument score were associated with higher mean SBP (difference in mean SBP mmHg per 1SD higher score: 0.12, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.17, p < 0.0001, and 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13, p=0.037, respectively) but not DBP. 5 key findings →
This study examined the proteome associated with TDP-43 inclusions in ALS, using mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis of spinal cord and cerebral cortex from donors with phosphoTDP-43 positive ALS (n = 16), alpha-synuclein positive Parkinson's disease (PD, n = 8), phosphotau and beta-amyloid positive Alzheimer's disease (AD, n = 8) and age matched non-neurological controls (n = 8), comparing ALS with non-ALS conditions, spinal cord with cerebral cortex samples, and detergent-soluble with -insoluble fractions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·FEBS Journal·2025-09-02
TDP-linked proteinopathies, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE), are characterised by pathogenic deposits containing transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) in the brain and spinal cord of patients. 1 key finding →
Mutations in the ANXA11 gene, encoding an RNA-binding protein, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), but the underlying in vivo mechanisms remain unclear. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Scientific Reports·2025-01-23
Copy number variation (CNV) of the amyloid-β precursor protein gene (APP) is a known cause of autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD), but de novo genetic variants causing ADAD are rare. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100.·Cell Reports·2025-04-23
Recent reports suggest dysregulation of the N6-methyladenosine (m6A) RNA modification may contribute to the pathology of neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →
The concomitant depletion of dopaminergic and serotonergic inputs within the hippocampus of C57BL/6N mice provokes a pronounced activation of microglia via the NLRP3-inflammasome pathway, accompanied by increased IL-1β expression. 5 key findings →
In PD patients, a decrease in [ 18 F]DOPA PET retention correlated with disease duration as well as CSF neurodegenerative and synaptic biomarkers but not with inflammatory biomarkers or [ 18 F]RO948 PET midbrain off-target retention. 2 key findings →
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by memory loss and cognitive decline, with women being disproportionately affected in both prevalence and severity. 1 key finding →
To date, the impact of cognitive therapies on patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been studied in terms of cognition, quality of life and activities of daily living rather than in the context of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). 5 key findings →
Higher general burden was associated with female caregivers (β = −.19, p = .05), higher education (β = .16, p = .03), caring for someone with dementia (β = .36, p = .01), and greater dysphagia-related burden (β = .33, p = .01). 5 key findings →
Genetic variants increase the risk of neurocognitive disorders in later life, including vascular dementia (VaD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the precise relationships between genetic risk factors and underlying disease etiologies are not well understood. 4 key findings →
Amyloid status moderated associations between IIV-dispersion and WMH, such that higher IIV-dispersion was associated with greater WMH in Aß+ individuals whether WMH was examined as a continuous (B = 0.30, ß = 0.13, p = .006) or a dichotomous variable based on quartiles (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, p < .001). 4 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%),
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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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.