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.

Lewy body (LB) disorders, including Parkinson disease (PD), Parkinson disease dementia (PDD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), are the second most common type of neurodegenerative dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Though results of pivotal studies in early (prodromal/mild) Alzheimer's disease are awaited, results to date in more established (mild to moderate) Alzheimer's disease have been equivocal and no disease modifying agents are either licensed or can be currently recommended for clinical use. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Although diagnosed by characteristic motor features, Parkinson's disease may be preceded, and is frequently accompanied by, a wide range of cognitive and neuropsychiatric features. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a powerful tool to probe in vivo brain circuits, as it allows to assess several cortical properties such asexcitability, plasticity and connectivity in humans. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) as a precursor of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is the focus of recent research, trying to explore the early mechanisms and possible biomarkers of DLB. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

TDP-43 pathology in Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies and ageing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) 2016-08-24

Intracellular inclusions consisting of TAR DNA binding protein-43 (TDP-43 pathology) are present in up to 57% of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases and follow a distinct topographical pattern of progression described in the TDP-43 in AD staging scheme. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The analysis included 121 521 participants (mean age: 55.7 years; 53.5% women), followed for a median of 10.9 years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 121 Evidence: moderate

In 2023, there were 205,507 people with dementia in the CPRD database, 40,244 with Parkinson's disease, 3515 with MND and 1672 with Huntington's disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 205,507 Evidence: low

At baseline, the mean MNA score was 22.5 ± 2.3. 5 key findings →

Participants: 105 Evidence: high

Investigation of dopaminergic transporter loss in vivo using (123)I-N-fluoropropyl-2β-carbomethoxy-3β-(4-iodophenyl) nortropane single photon emission computed tomography has been widely used as a diagnostic aid in Lewy body disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The 12 risk factors account for 60.3% of dementia cases in China, including 14.0% in early life, 8.8% in midlife, and 37.5% in later life. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Increasing evidence suggests that vascular risk factors contribute to neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment and dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Multiple different pathological protein aggregates are frequently seen in human postmortem brains and hence mixed pathology is common. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

White matter abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are associated with dementia and include white matter hyperintensities (WMH; also termed leukoaraiosis) and visible perivascular spaces (PVS). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure whole brain functional connectivity within specific networks hypothesised to be more affected in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) (a disease characterised by prominent attentional deficits, spontaneous motor features of parkinsonism and depression) than in Alzheimer׳s disease (AD) and controls. 4 key findings →

Participants: 68 Evidence: low

Temporal lobe regions engaged during normal speech comprehension

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2003-05-01

Processing of speech is obligatory. Thus, during normal speech comprehension, the listener is aware of the overall meaning of the speaker's utterance without the need to direct attention to individual linguistic and paralinguistic (intonational, prosodic, etc.) features contained within the speech signal. 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 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