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 24,901–24,925 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed(page 997 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.
Neuroprotective drugs tested in clinical trials, particularly those that block N-methyl-D-aspartate-sensitive glutamate receptors (NMDARs), have failed miserably in large part because of intolerable side effects. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Neuropharmacology·2007-08-10
The neurotransmitter glutamate activates several classes of metabotropic receptor and three major types of ionotropic receptor--alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA), kainate and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA). 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD), a progressive neurodegenerative disorder, is characterized by the deficits in the cholinergic system and deposition of beta amyloid (Aβ) in the form of neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaques. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Brain research·1996-01-01
Substantial evidences suggest that the increased cerebral deposition, and neurotoxic action of the beta-amyloid peptide, the major constituent of senile plaques, may represent the underlying cause of the cognitive deficits observed in Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is increasingly being recognized as one of the most important medical and social problems in older people in industrialized and non-industrialized nations. 5 key findings →
The aggregation of beta-amyloid (1-40) (Abeta) induced by human recombinant acetylcholinesterase (HuAChE) was studied by means of circular dichroism (CD) and by thioflavin T fluorescence spectroscopy. 5 key findings →
β-amyloid (Aβ) is widely accepted to be one of the major pathomechanisms underlying Alzheimer's disease (AD), although there is presently lively debate regarding the relative roles of particular species/forms of this peptide. 1 key finding →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the elderly, characterised by widespread loss of central cholinergic function. 1 key finding →
Phase 3 (final) clinical trials have shown that memantine is effective in treating moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease while being well tolerated. 1 key finding →
Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) predominates in the healthy brain, with butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE) considered to play a minor role in regulating brain acetylcholine (ACh) levels. 1 key finding →
The initial transition of amyloid beta (1-42) (Abeta42) soluble monomers/small oligomers from unordered/alpha-helix to a beta-sheet-rich conformation represents a suitable target to design new potent inhibitors and to obtain effective therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Memantine, a partial antagonist of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR), approved for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatment within the U.S. and Europe under brand name Namenda (Forest), Axura and Akatinol (Merz), and Ebixa and Abixa (Lundbeck), may have potential in alleviating additional neurological conditions, such as vascular dementia (VD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). 1 key finding →
Galantamine (Reminyl), an approved treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD), is a potent allosteric potentiating ligand (APL) of human alpha 3 beta 4, alpha 4 beta 2, and alpha 6 beta 4 nicotinic receptors (nAChRs), and of the chicken/mouse chimeric alpha 7/5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor, as was shown by whole-cell patch-clamp studies of human embryonic kidney-293 cells stably expressing a single nAChR subtype. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Biochemistry·2002-03-01
Rivastigmine, a carbamate inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase, is already in use for treatment of Alzheimer's disease under the trade name of Exelon. 2 key findings →
N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs) mediate interneuronal communication and are broadly involved in nervous system physiology and pathology (Dingledine et al., 1999). 4 key findings →
Patients diagnosed with AD still mostly benefit from four compounds to significantly improve cognition functions and overall health and help manage other symptoms or even prolong the symptom-free period. 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.