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 neuropathology of traumatic brain injury

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Handbook of clinical neurology 2015-01-01

Traumatic brain injury, a leading cause of mortality and morbidity, is divided into three grades of severity: mild, moderate, and severe, based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, the loss of consciousness, and the development of post-traumatic amnesia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Palliative care in Parkinson disease and related disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Handbook of clinical neurology 2023

Although neuropalliative care is a relatively new field, there is increasing evidence for its use among the degenerative parkinsonian syndromes, including idiopathic Parkinson disease, progressive supranuclear palsy, multiple system atrophy, dementia with Lewy bodies, and corticobasal syndrome. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Niemann-Pick diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Handbook of clinical neurology 2013-01-01

The Niemann-Pick disease group is now divided into two distinct entities: (1) acid sphingomyelinase-deficient Niemann-Pick disease (ASM-deficient NPD) resulting from mutations in the SMPD1 gene and encompassing type A and type B as well as intermediate forms; (2) Niemann-Pick disease type C (NP-C) including also type D, resulting from mutations in either the NPC1 or the NPC2 gene. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Alpha-synucleinopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Handbook of clinical neurology 2017

A neurodegenerative disorder displaying an altered α-synuclein (αS) in the brain tissue is called α-synucleinopathy (αS-pathy) and incorporates clinical entities such as Parkinson disease (PD), PD with dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, and multiple-system atrophy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Palliative medicine and end-of-life care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Handbook of clinical neurology 2019

Palliative care is an approach to the care of patients, affected by serious illness, and their families that aims to reduce suffering through the management of medical symptoms, psychosocial issues, spiritual well-being, and setting goals of care. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

This chapter discusses the dependency of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs) on endogenous nerve growth factor (NGF) for the structural and physiologic maintenance of the neuronal cell somata, axonal projections, and terminal synapses. 1 key finding →

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