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.

In older cognitively unimpaired individuals (≥50 years), widespread, age-related elevated tau signal was seen among those with normal or abnormal amyloid status as compared to younger cognitively unimpaired individuals (30-49 years). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We aimed to investigate whether hippocampal TDP-43 is associated with increased rates of hippocampal atrophy. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 205 Evidence: moderate

An autoradiographic evaluation of AV-1451 Tau PET in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica communications 2016-06-13

Reduced AV-1451 binding in neuritic pathology compared to neurofibrillary tangles suggests that the maturity of tau pathology may affect AV-1451 binding and suggests complexity in AV-1451 binding. 4 key findings →

Participants: 38 Evidence: low

Apraxia of speech (AOS) is a motor speech disorder characterized by slow speaking rate, abnormal prosody and distorted sound substitutions, additions, repetitions and prolongations, sometimes accompanied by groping, and trial and error articulatory movements. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Updated TDP-43 in Alzheimer's disease staging scheme

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2016-01-25

In this study, we update the TDP-43 in Alzheimer's disease staging scheme by assessing the topography of TDP-43 in 193 cases of Alzheimer's disease, in 14 different brain regions (eight previously described plus six newly reported) and use conditional probability to model the spread of TDP-43 across the 14 brain regions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

MRI correlates of neurofibrillary tangle pathology at autopsy: a voxel-based morphometry study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2008-09-01

Patterns of gray matter loss are associated with neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) pathology, specifically with NFT burden at Braak stages III and IV and with Braak stage itself at higher stages. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Through an international consortium, we have collected 37 tau- and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43)-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) cases, and present here the first comprehensive analysis of these cases in terms of neuropathology, genetics, demographics and clinical data. 92% (34/37) had fused in sarcoma (FUS) protein pathology, indicating that FTLD-FUS is an important FTLD subtype. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Progressive aphasia secondary to Alzheimer disease vs FTLD pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-01

A temporoparietal pattern of atrophy on MRI in patients with progressive fluent aphasia and relatively preserved processing speed is suggestive of underlying Alzheimer disease pathology rather than frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-only immunoreactive changes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 216 Evidence: low

Neuropathology of variants of progressive supranuclear palsy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Current opinion in neurology 2010-08-01

Neurodegenerative tauopathies, of which progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is one of the most common, are clinically heterogeneous, reflecting differences in distribution and biochemical composition of tau pathology. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) has varying clinical (MSA-P versus MSA-C) and pathological [striatonigral degeneration (SND) versus olivopontocerebellar atrophy (OPCA)] phenotypes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Rapidly progressive neurodegenerative dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2009-02-01

Based on this cohort, although CJD is the most likely cause of a rapidly progressive neurodegenerative dementia, frontotemporal lobar degeneration with motor neuron degeneration, diffuse Lewy body disease, tauopathies, and Alzheimer disease can also cause a rapidly progressive dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

Recent findings Corticobasal degeneration and PSP are neurodegenerative diseases characterized by neuronal loss and gliosis in cardinal brain regions, as well as the abnormal deposition of the microtubule associated protein tau in cell bodies and cell processes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Primary Progressive Aphasias and Apraxia of Speech

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) 2019-02-01

This article reviews two of the primary progressive aphasias (PPAs), disorders characterized by the early and predominant impairment of language, and primary progressive apraxia of speech, a degenerative motor speech disorder that is closely related to PPA. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We compare patterns of gray matter loss on MRI in subjects presenting as corticobasal syndrome (CBS) with Alzheimer disease pathology (CBS-AD) to those presenting as CBS with corticobasal degeneration pathology (CBS-CBD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Autopsy-proven progressive supranuclear palsy presenting as behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Neurocase 2011-12-20

In these, at least one cardinal symptom or sign of PSP later emerges, associated with smaller midbrain volume and increased pons/midbrain ratio. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

TDP-43 is a key player in the clinical features associated with Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2014-03-23

The aim of this study was to determine whether the TAR DNA-binding protein of 43 kDa (TDP-43) has any independent effect on the clinical and neuroimaging features typically ascribed to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology, and whether TDP-43 pathology could help shed light on the phenomenon of resilient cognition in AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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.

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

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed