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 21,876–21,900 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 876 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 plaques enriched with extracellular amyloid beta (Aβ) and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles comprised of hyperphosphorylated tau proteins are the two main pathological hallmarks of AD. 5 key findings →
Differential diagnosis of atypical Parkinson syndromes (APS) is difficult as clinical presentations may vary and as there is a strong overlap between disease entities. 1 key finding →
Tau, the main component of the neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), is an attractive target for immunotherapy in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other tauopathies. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·eNeuro·2019-05-15
Currently there is no effective therapy available for cognitive impairments in Down syndrome (DS), one of the most prevalent forms of intellectual disability in humans associated with the chromosomes 21 trisomy. 4 key findings →
Delivering drugs and agents to the brain is a huge challenge, especially for chronic neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Diabetologia·2019-01-12
Single-cell digital PCR revealed GLP-1 receptor expression in neurogliaform cells and showed that copy numbers of mRNA of the Glp1r gene in hyperglycaemia exceeded those in hypoglycaemia by 9.6 times (p < 0.008). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Peptides·2018-01-09
GLP-1 signaling pathway has been well studied for its role in regulating glucose homeostasis, as well as its beneficial effects in energy and nutrient metabolism. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·Neuroscience bulletin·2019-01-10
Hyperhomocysteinemia (Hhcy) is an independent risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and insulin-resistance is commonly seen in patients with Hhcy. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·F1000Research·2020-04-06
The discovery that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) mediates a significant proportion of the incretin effect during the postprandial period and the subsequent observation that GLP-1 bioactivity is retained in type 2 diabetes (T2D) led to new therapeutic strategies being developed for T2D treatment based on GLP-1 action. 1 key finding →
The French Minister of Health published a decree on May 29th of 2018 removing the drugs used to fight against symptoms due to Alzheimer's disease (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, memantine) from the list of available reimbursed drugs. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease is a neuropathological disease with symptoms such as language problems, confusion as to place or time, loss of interest in activities, which were previously enjoyed, behavioral changes, and memory loss. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100.·ChemMedChem·2018-06-19
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease with no clinically accepted treatment to cure or halt its progression. 4 key findings →
This review is devoted to comparative pharmacological analysis of synthetic drugs such as memantine and its isomers, as well as tacrine, velnacrine, rivastigmine, and donepezil, with natural alkaloids, terpenoids, and triterpenoid peroxides, which are used to treat dementia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, myasthenia gravis and other neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →
In this report we assessed by docking and molecular dynamics the binding mechanisms of three FDA-approved Alzheimer drugs, inhibitors of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE): donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine. 5 key findings →
Cholinergic dysfunction, demonstrated in the late 1970s and early 1980s, led to the introduction of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) in 1993 (Tacrine) to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission as the first line of treatment against Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
An increase in dementia numbers and global trends in population aging across the world prompts the need for new medications to treat the complex biological dysfunctions, such as neurodegeneration associated with dementia. 1 key finding →
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.