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.

Frontotemporal dementia and its subtypes: a genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2014-07-01

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high

The overall conversion rate from iRBD to an overt neurodegenerative syndrome was 6.3% per year, with 73.5% converting after 12-year follow-up. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,280 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities and β-Amyloid-Targeting Antibodies: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2022-03-01

Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 genotype was the main risk factor for both ARIA types; ARIA-E incidence was further associated with treatment dose, affecting the 55% of ApoE ε4 carriers in the high-dose aducanumab treatment group. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Several studies report an association between REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (RBD) and neurodegenerative diseases, in particular synucleinopathies. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet Neurology 2014-05-18

This Position Paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of the International Working Group research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework for Alzheimer's disease.

Evidence: low

Rates of Amyloid Imaging Positivity in Patients With Primary Progressive Aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-03-01

Inclusion criteria included clinical diagnosis of PPA; availability of complete speech, language, and cognitive testing; magnetic resonance imaging performed within 6 months of the cognitive evaluation; and PET carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound-B or florbetapir F 18 brain scan results. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 109 Evidence: moderate

Quantifying the risk of neurodegenerative disease in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2008-12-24

Although we have found a slightly lower risk than other reports, the risk of developing neurodegenerative disease in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder is substantial, with the majority of patients developing Parkinson disease and Lewy body dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 113 Evidence: low

A single-question screen for RBD may reliably detect disease, with psychometric properties favorably comparable to those reported for longer questionnaires. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study 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

Of 305 patients, follow-up information was available for 279, of whom 93 (33.3%) developed defined neurodegenerative disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 305 Evidence: low

Association of Microglial Activation With Spontaneous ARIA-E and CSF Levels of Anti-Aβ Autoantibodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2022-08-08

ARIA-E can also occur spontaneously in cerebral amyloid angiopathy-related inflammation (CAA-ri), a rare autoimmune encephalopathy associated with increased CSF levels of anti-Aβ autoantibodies. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Discrimination between Alzheimer dementia and controls by automated analysis of multicenter FDG PET

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. NeuroImage 2002-09-01

A new diagnostic indicator of FDG PET scan abnormality, based on age-adjusted t statistics and an automated voxel-based procedure, is presented and validated in a large data set comprising 110 normal controls and 395 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) that were studied in eight participating centers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 395 Evidence: low

Increased BPSD was reported in 59.6% of patients as worsening of preexisting symptoms (51.9%) or as new onset (26%), and requested drug modifications in 27.6% of these cases. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,913 Evidence: low

Risk Factors for Phenoconversion in Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2022-01-24

Our findings elucidate the predictive values of environmental factors and comorbid conditions in identifying RBD patients at higher risk of phenoconversion. 4 key findings →

Participants: 319 Evidence: moderate

Mind the gap: from neurons to networks to outcomes in multiple sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2021-01-12

MRI studies have provided valuable insights into the structure and function of neural networks, particularly in health and in classical neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among dementia-like diseases, Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) are two of the most frequent. 2 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

The current review summarizes the current knowledge on longitudinal cortical and subcortical grey and white matter MRI findings assessed using T1-weighted and one-tensor diffusion-weighted MRI in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

[(11)C]PIB retention in the neocortical and subcortical brain regions was significantly higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 97 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