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.

No treatment for frontotemporal dementia (FTD), the second most common type of early-onset dementia, is available, but therapeutics are being investigated to target the 2 main proteins associated with FTD pathological subtypes: TDP-43 (FTLD-TDP) and tau (FTLD-tau). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

α-synuclein toxicity in neurodegeneration: mechanism and therapeutic strategies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Nature medicine 2017-02-01

Alterations in α-synuclein dosage lead to familial Parkinson's disease (PD), and its accumulation results in synucleinopathies that include PD, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and multiple system atrophy (MSA). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

DTI-ALPS values were significantly lower compared to HC in both DLB (Estimate = -0.084 [-0.14 to -0.03], p = 0.004) and MCI-LB (Estimate = -0.058 [-0.11 to -0.002], p = 0.047) DTI-ALPS was also significantly associated with both baseline (t[147] = 2.22, p = 0.028) and longitudinal decline (t[127] = 2.41,p = 0.017) in cognitive score. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

Proteins Involved in Endothelial Function and Inflammation Are Implicated in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Stroke 2025-01-17

). Moreover, 12 proteins related to endothelial function and inflammation were associated with neuroimaging features of SVD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate

Of the total, 908 (37.0%) participants had cSVD on MRI reading at baseline. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,454 Evidence: moderate

We recruited 210 participants; 205 (66.8% male; aged 66.4±11.1 years) had useable data. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 210 Evidence: moderate

TARDBP mutations in individuals with sporadic and familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Nature Genetics 2008-03-30

This study investigated amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, an adult-onset neurological disorder that leads to the degeneration of motor neurons and involves TDP-43 as a key component of ubiquitinated aggregates. 2 key findings →

Research Gaps and Controversies in Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-10-01

Available data, while limited and complicated by selection bias, indicate that exposure to RBT represents the greatest risk factor for CTE pathological features, although clinicopathological correlates and the nature of onset and progression of symptoms are largely unknown. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The combination of CSF biomarkers linked to different aspects of neurodegeneration, such as FABP3, α-syn, and AD biomarkers, improves the biochemical characterization of AD and Lewy body disorders. 4 key findings →

Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate

CSF C1q and C3b, as well as plasma C2 and C3, were elevated in symptomatic mutation carriers compared to presymptomatic carriers and non-carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Altered within- and between-network functional connectivity in atypical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Brain communications 2023-06-14

Reduced within-network connectivity was observed in the language network in both phenotypes, with stronger evidence of reductions in logopenic progressive aphasia compared to controls. 5 key findings →

Participants: 144 Evidence: moderate

Persistent and Progressive Outer Retina Thinning in Frontotemporal Degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Frontiers in neuroscience 2019-04-04

Compared to controls, returning FTD patients (143 vs. 130 μm, p = 0.005) and the tauopathy subgroup (143 vs. 128 μm, p = 0.03) had thinner outer retinas but similar inner layer thicknesses. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate

Several studies have suggested that atherosclerotic diseases and diabetes may be risk factors for α-synucleinopathies. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

8 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 8. The same 8 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