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 21,051–21,075 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 843 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1995-09-01
The etiology of neurodegenerative diseases remains enigmatic; however, evidence for defects in energy metabolism, excitotoxicity, and for oxidative damage is increasingly compelling. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·PloS one·2010-04-01
Our data suggest that inhibition of mTOR by rapamycin, an intervention that extends lifespan in mice, can slow or block AD progression in a transgenic mouse model of the disease. 5 key findings →
Recent studies have suggested that neuronal death in Alzheimer's disease or ischemia could arise from dysfunction of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). 3 key findings →
Mammalian cells remove misfolded proteins using various proteolytic systems, including the ubiquitin (Ub)-proteasome system (UPS), chaperone mediated autophagy (CMA) and macroautophagy. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Annals of neurology·1992-02-01
The etiology of nerve cell death in neuronal degenerative disease is unknown, but it has been hypothesized that excitotoxic mechanisms may play a role. 1 key finding →
As the second most common age related neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer's disease, the health, social and economic impact resulting from Parkinson's disease will continue to increase alongside the longevity of the population. 1 key finding →
The neuronal microtubule-associated protein tau plays an important role in establishing cell polarity by stabilizing axonal microtubules that serve as tracks for motor-protein-driven transport processes. 5 key findings →
As the number of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) increases, it brings great suffering to their families and causes a heavy socioeconomic burden to society. 5 key findings →
Oxidative stress (OS), caused by the imbalance between the generation and detoxification of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS/RNS), plays an important role in brain aging, neurodegenerative diseases, and other related adverse conditions, such as ischemia. 5 key findings →
Neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction are common features of chronic neurodegenerative diseases of the central nervous system. 5 key findings →
Worldwide costs for dementia are enormous, and informal care constitutes a major cost component, in particular in less developed regions. 2 key findings →
These findings indicate that the early diagnosis and treatment of AD are not only socially desirable in terms of increasing economic efficiency, but also fiscally attractive from both state and federal perspectives. 4 key findings →
As many as 45% to 80% of nursing home residents have pain that contributes materially to functional impairment and decreased quality of life. 1 key finding →
The prevalence of depressive disorders among nursing home residents is high; depression recognition is relatively low, with only 37%-45% of cases diagnosed by psychiatrists recognized as depressed by staff. 2 key findings →
Dysphagia, which is a geriatric syndrome affecting 10% to 33% of older adults, is commonly seen in older adults who have experienced a stroke or neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer or Parkinson disease. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·Medical care·2010-04-01
The findings suggest that diseases affect preference-based HRQoL differently in a hospital-based LTC population compared with previous studies in the general population. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2008-04-01
When caring for people with severe Alzheimer's disease (AD), the concept of the person being central is increasingly advocated in clinical practice and academia as an approach to deliver high-quality care. 5 key findings →
Antimicrobial treatment of suspected pneumonia episodes is associated with prolonged survival but not with improved comfort in nursing home residents with advanced dementia. 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 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.