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 2,026–2,050 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 82 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.
The global mortality of ADRD among adults aged ≥65 years increased by 115%, from 6.5 (95% UI 1.5-18) per 100,000 population in 1991 to 14 (95% UI 3.5-37) per 100,000 population in 2021, with an Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) of 1.10% (95%CI 0.45%-1.76%). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Nature·2017-01-01
This study investigated a subtype of reactive astrocytes called A1 and discovered that they are induced by classically activated neuroinflammatory microglia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Brain·2016-03-08
Voxel-wise contrasts against controls (at P < 0.05 family-wise error corrected) showed that (18)F-AV1451 and (18)F-FDG patterns in patients with posterior cortical atrophy ('visual variant of Alzheimer's disease', n = 7) specifically targeted the clinically affected posterior brain regions, while (11)C-PiB bound diffusely throughout the neocortex. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aβ) accumulation and neuroinflammation. 4 key findings →
MES-defined cognitive impairment (≤-2 standard deviation [SD] deviation after adjustment for demographics) was identified in 12.4% of participants. 5 key findings →
P-tau181 (odds ratio [OR] 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-3.00, p < 0.001), p-tau217 (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.10-2.61, p = 0.016), and t-tau (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08-1.92, p = 0.012) were associated with appetite change. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·NeuroImage. Clinical·2019-11-06
Presence on T2-weighted images of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) has been previously shown to be more commonly associated with GRN mutations rather than other forms of FTD. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2023-04-14
Dilation of perivascular spaces (PVS) in the brain may indicate poor fluid drainage due to the accumulation of perivascular cell debris, waste, and proteins, including amyloid-beta (Aβ). 2 key findings →
In participants who progressed to amyloid-positive MCI, plasma p-tau181/Aβ42 and GFAP diverged from stable controls earliest (about 13 and 12 years before symptom onset, respectively), followed by Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, and NfL, all of which became abnormal before symptom onset. 4 key findings →
The AD PRS model that was most predictive of AD diagnosis (even without APOE) was the liver AD PRS: n = 1,115; odds ratio = 2.15 (1.67-2.78), p = 3.62×10-9. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100.·BMJ open·2020-11-24
Cognitive impairment is recognised as an important non-motor symptom in Parkinson's disease (PD) and there is a need for evidence-based non-pharmacological interventions that may prevent or slow cognitive decline in this patient group. 1 key finding →
In addition to the apolipoprotein E (APOE) locus, our GWAS of two independent Chinese samples uncovered three novel AD susceptibility loci (KIAA2013, SLC52A3, and TCN2) and a novel ancestry-specific variant within EGFR (rs1815157). 5 key findings →
Recently, 19 susceptibility loci for Alzheimer's disease (AD) had been identified through AD genome-wide association studies (GWAS) meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
The association between PICALM rs3851179 variant and Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been well established by previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and candidate gene studies in European population. 5 key findings →
The Brains for Dementia Research project is a recently established longitudinal cohort which aims to provide brain tissue for research purposes from neuropathologically defined samples. 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.