Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

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.

DLB fluctuations: specific features that reliably differentiate DLB from AD and normal aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2004-01-01

Based on informant report, disturbed arousal and disorganized speech are specific aspects of fluctuations in dementia with Lewy bodies that reliably distinguish dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease and normal aging. 4 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

Medical, surgical, and physical treatments for Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2024-01-01

Although dopamine replacement therapy remains a core component of Parkinson's disease treatment, the onset of motor fluctuations and dyskinetic movements might require a range of medical and surgical approaches from a multidisciplinary team, and important new approaches in the delivery of dopamine replacement are becoming available. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our study demonstrates that MRI, a widespread imaging technology, can individually identify bvFTD with high accuracy in multi-center imaging data, paving the road to personalized diagnostic approaches in the future. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Our results demonstrate that different MAPT mutations give rise to distinct atrophy patterns and clinical phenotype, providing insights into the underlying disease biology and potential utility for patient stratification in therapeutic trials. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Characterizing the RNA targets and position-dependent splicing regulation by TDP-43

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2011-02-27

TDP-43 is a predominantly nuclear RNA-binding protein that forms inclusion bodies in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We identified two variants in TARDBP, which would encode Gly290Ala and Gly298Ser forms of TDP-43, in two kindreds with familial ALS. 2 key findings →

Participants: 259 Evidence: low

TDP-43 pathology disrupts nuclear pore complexes and nucleocytoplasmic transport in ALS/FTD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2018-01-08

The cytoplasmic mislocalization and aggregation of TAR DNA-binding protein-43 (TDP-43) is a common histopathological hallmark of the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia disease spectrum (ALS/FTD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A locus on chromosome 9p21 has been associated with both disorders, and we aimed to identify the causal gene within this region. 3 key findings →

Participants: 305 Evidence: moderate

There was strong agreement regarding the definition of the core clinico-radiological syndrome, meaning that the current consensus statement should be regarded as a refinement, development, and extension of previous single-center PCA criteria rather than any wholesale alteration or redescription of the syndrome. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Therapeutic reduction of ataxin-2 extends lifespan and reduces pathology in TDP-43 mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature 2017-04-12

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a rapidly progressing neurodegenerative disease that is characterized by motor neuron loss and that leads to paralysis and death 2-5 years after disease onset. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A 2-Step Cerebrospinal Algorithm for the Selection of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration Subtypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-06-01

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) core Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers have shown an excellent capacity for the in vivo detection of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 143 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive impairment is one of the earliest, most common, and most disabling non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 360 Evidence: moderate

The genetic variant rs72824905-G (minor allele) in the PLCG2 gene was previously associated with a reduced Alzheimer's disease risk (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 53,627 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Lewy body diseases (LBD), e.g., Parkinson's disease (PD) dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), are common causes of geriatric cognitive impairments. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 389 Evidence: moderate

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are commonly assumed to represent non-specific cerebrovascular disease comorbid to neurodegenerative processes, rather than playing a synergistic role. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 571 Evidence: moderate

Recent studies suggest the existence of brain-first and body-first subtypes within the Lewy body disorder (LBD) spectrum, including Parkinson's disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 173 Evidence: low

The LBD-present group had higher QSM values in the SNc (P = 0.008) than the LBD-absent group with no differences in SNr. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate

Three survey rounds included 49 to 54 participants that agreed on VasCog-2 diagnostic criteria for preclinical, mild, and major dementia levels of vascular cognitive impairment (under the overarching term VCID). 5 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Except for αSyn, the additional biomarkers did not differentiate PD and HC, and none showed longitudinal differences, but most markers predict cognitive decline in PD during follow-up. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 of the 2,823 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events