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.

The frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2016-03-14

Early reports of cognitive and behavioural deficits in motor neuron disease might have been overlooked initially, but the concept of a frontotemporal dementia-motor neuron disease continuum has emerged during the past decade. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Controversies and priorities in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2013-03-01

Two decades after the discovery that 20% of familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) cases were linked to mutations in the superoxide dismutase-1 (SOD1) gene, a substantial proportion of the remainder of cases of familial ALS have now been traced to an expansion of the intronic hexanucleotide repeat sequence in C9orf72. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Use of potentially inappropriate medications in Australian nursing home residents with advanced dementia is common. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 65 Evidence: high

A preceding article described the clinical features of Parkinson's disease dementia (PD-D) and proposed clinical diagnostic criteria for "probable" and "possible" PD-D. The main focus of this article is to operationalize the diagnosis of PD-D and to propose practical guidelines based on a two level process depending upon the clinical scenario and the expertise of the evaluator involved in the assessment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diagnostic criteria for vascular cognitive disorders: a VASCOG statement

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2014-07-01

The proposed criteria for VCD provide a coherent approach to the diagnosis of this diverse group of disorders, with a view to stimulating clinical and pathologic validation studies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

There were 656 deaths, 1585 incidents of CVD and 165 dementia diagnoses during 17.2 years of follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,584 Evidence: moderate

The results of this study provide objective validation of the ACE-III as a screening tool for cognitive deficits in FTD and AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

Changes to AIDS dementia complex in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. AIDS (London, England) 1999-07-01

A proportional increase in ADC compared with other ADIs and a marked increase in the median CD4 cell count at ADC diagnosis have occurred since the introduction of HAART in Australia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,049 Evidence: low

The semantic and non-fluent/agrammatic variants are largely associated with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 and tau pathology, respectively. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A location dynamics model and ADRD-focused future directions are offered for guiding rural practitioners, researchers, and policymakers in mitigating rural disparities. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Single-Cell Gene-Regulatory Networks of Advanced Symptomatic Atherosclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Circulation research 2024-04-19

Single-cell RNA sequencing data generated with SmartSeq2 (≈8000 genes/cell) in 16 588 single cells isolated during atherosclerosis progression in Ldlr -/- Apob 100/100 mice with human-like plasma lipoproteins and from humans with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid plaques was clustered into multiple subtypes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Sequence of Alzheimer disease biomarker changes in cognitively normal adults: A cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2020-09-01

Cross-sectional data, including CSF analytes, molecular imaging of cerebral fibrillar β-amyloid (Aβ) with PET using the [ 11 C] benzothiazole tracer Pittsburgh compound B (PiB), MRI-based brain structures, and clinical/cognitive outcomes harmonized from 8 studies, collectively involving 3,284 cognitively normal individuals 18 to 101 years of age, were analyzed. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Population health research is increasingly focused on the genetic determinants of healthy ageing, but there is no public resource of whole genome sequences and phenotype data from healthy elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Making time for brain health: recognising temporal inequity in dementia risk reduction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Lancet Healthy Longevity 2025-10-01

Time is an under-recognised social determinant of brain health, and is potentially as important as education or income for dementia risk. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Defining a signature of cortical regions of interest preferentially affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology may offer improved sensitivity to early AD compared to hippocampal volume or mesial temporal lobe alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 588 Evidence: moderate

Disinhibition is a common behavioural symptom in frontotemporal dementia but its neural correlates are still debated. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

A comparison of caregivers for elderly stroke and dementia victims

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1992-09-01

Elderly co-resident caregivers for stroke and dementia patients experience similar degrees of burden and high levels of psychological morbidity. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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