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.

It is unknown whether multidomain interventions, which might preserve late-life cognition, affect Alzheimer's disease pathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 527 Evidence: high

TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP-43, also known as TARDBP) is the major pathological protein in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

of 74,486 decedents (60.5% women; mean age 87.1 years (standard deviation: 7.1)), 82.6% had at least one ED visit in their last year of life. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Although plasma pTau181, pTau217, pTau231, and GFAP were significantly associated with both Aβ-PET and CSF pTau181, Aβ-PET explained more variance in the levels of these biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is increasingly recognized to be a multisystem disorder which includes both clinical and neuropathological features of a frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These data suggest that quality of life in dementia is complex, and that simple proxy substitutions of discrete measures such as cognition or function are likely to miss important factors. 5 key findings →

Participants: 101 Evidence: low

Hypertension prevalence was higher in urban (range 52.6-79.8%) than rural sites (range 42.6-56.9%), and lower in men than women [pooled prevalence ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-0.93]. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 14 Evidence: low

The ε4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE ε4) is associated with an additional risk for AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 240 Evidence: low

Oxidative stress and the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 1996-12-01

Current concepts of the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease (PD) center on the formation of reactive oxygen species and the onset of oxidative stress leading to oxidative damage to substantia nigra pars compacta. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Vitamin B12, folic acid, and the nervous system

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2006-11-01

There are many reasons for reviewing the neurology of vitamin-B12 and folic-acid deficiencies together, including the intimate relation between the metabolism of the two vitamins, their morphologically indistinguishable megaloblastic anaemias, and their overlapping neuropsychiatric syndromes and neuropathology, including their related inborn errors of metabolism. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 360,014 individuals with psoriasis and 1,799,617 without, psoriasis was associated with a small increased risk of all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08; absolute rate difference 24 per 100,000 person-years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 360,014 Evidence: moderate

In adjusted analyses, the rate of first ACP conversation for persons with organ failure was the lowest (IRR 0.70 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.73)). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A hexanucleotide repeat expansion in the C9orf72 gene is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with synaptic dysfunction identified as an early pathological hallmark. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Several recent research studies show high performance of blood biomarkers to identify Alzheimer's disease also in the pre-dementia mild cognitive impairment (MCI) stage, but data from the routine clinical care memory clinic setting are needed. 1 key finding →

Participants: 54 Evidence: low

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia does not appear to be associated with neuronal, particularly axonal degeneration. 4 key findings →

Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate

We examined how an Alzheimer disease (AD) family history assessment as compared to a risk assessment incorporating the absence of a disease-associated susceptibility allele affected risk perception among adult children with a family history of AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

↑ 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.

1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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