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.

Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), a progressive neurodegenerative disease with heterogeneous clinical presentations, greatly impacts patients, caregivers, and society. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Predicting dementia in people with Parkinson’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. npj Parkinson s Disease 2025-05-13

Parkinson's disease (PD) exhibits a variety of symptoms, with approximately 25% of patients experiencing mild cognitive impairment and 45% developing dementia within ten years of diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Neuro Degenerative Disorders (NDDs) involve progressive nerve cell loss, impacting functions like sensation, movement, memory, and cognition, posing life-threatening risks. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We observed a nonlinear trajectory of two functional connectivity metrics-temporal variability (fluidity) and connectedness (average node strength)-across symptom severity, especially in the delta frequency band. 4 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

Individual cognitive profiles of patients with Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) are highly heterogeneous, suggesting possible biological subtypes. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

The DET framework has achieved superior performance on the classification task across all the evaluation metrics compared to the traditional machine learning based methods, as demonstrated in Table 1. 4 key findings →

Participants: 106 Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD-MCI) can affect several cognitive domains, including attention, working memory, executive functions, language, visuospatial skills, and episodic memory, resulting in a progressive reduction of autonomy and an increased risk of dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Sixteen of 30 cases with DLB pathology had no parkinsonism, which represented diverse nigral neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Olfaction in neurodegenerative disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society 2003-04-01

There has been an increase of interest in olfactory dysfunction since it was realised that anosmia was a common feature of idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) and Alzheimer-type dementia (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Vitamin D receptor gene as a candidate gene for Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Annals of human genetics 2011-03-01

Vitamin D and vitamin D receptor (VDR) have been postulated as environmental and genetic factors in neurodegeneration disorders including multiple sclerosis (MS), Alzheimer disease (AD), and recently Parkinson disease (PD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Repetitive speech phenomena in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2000-09-01

Patients with advanced Parkinson's disease had a significantly higher disease impairment, longer disease duration, and an unstable motor response to levodopa with frequent on-off fluctuations. 5 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

An 82-year-old man presented with progressive changes in personality, social conduct, and executive function with preservation of memory, deteriorating from baseline to requiring acute hospitalization within 6 months. 1 key finding →

Design: case report Evidence: low

Neuroanatomy and pathology of sporadic Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Advances in anatomy, embryology, and cell biology 2009-01-01

The proteinopathy sporadic Parkinson's disease (sPD) is the second most frequent degenerative disorder of the human nervous system after Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The authors review the clinical, radiological, electrophysiological, pathological, and molecular aspects of Nasu-Hakola disease (polycystic lipomembranous osteodysplasia with sclerosing leukoencephalopathy or PLOSL). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

9 of the 1,072 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 9. The same 9 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