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.

Parietal cortex RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data were generated from individuals with and without Alzheimer disease (AD; n control = 13; n AD = 83) from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Microglia modulate Aβ-dependent astrocyte reactivity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Nature Neuroscience 2025-11-06

Experimental evidence suggests that activated microglia induce astrocyte reactivity in neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 352 Evidence: moderate

Tau positron emission tomography (PET) imaging allows in vivo detection of tau proteinopathy in Alzheimer's disease, which is associated with neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Participants: 12,048 Evidence: low

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are associated with loss of nuclear transactive response DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Characterizing the RNA targets and position-dependent splicing regulation by TDP-43

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2011-02-27

TDP-43 is a predominantly nuclear RNA-binding protein that forms inclusion bodies in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

TDP-43 pathology disrupts nuclear pore complexes and nucleocytoplasmic transport in ALS/FTD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2018-01-08

The cytoplasmic mislocalization and aggregation of TAR DNA-binding protein-43 (TDP-43) is a common histopathological hallmark of the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia disease spectrum (ALS/FTD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent studies suggest the existence of brain-first and body-first subtypes within the Lewy body disorder (LBD) spectrum, including Parkinson's disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 173 Evidence: low

Animal models of Alzheimer's disease have suggested that tau pathology propagation, facilitated by amyloid pathology, may occur along connected pathways. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Microglia are central players in Alzheimer's disease pathology but analyzing microglial states in human brain samples is challenging due to genetic diversity, postmortem delay and admixture of pathologies. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

19F and 1H MRI detection of amyloid beta plaques in vivo

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2005-03-13

Formation of senile plaques composed of amyloid beta peptide, a pathological hallmark of Alzheimer disease, in human brains precedes disease onset by many years. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

C9ORF72 poly(GA) aggregates sequester and impair HR23 and nucleocytoplasmic transport proteins

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2016-03-21

Neuronal inclusions of poly(GA), a protein unconventionally translated from G4C2 repeat expansions in C9ORF72, are abundant in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by this mutation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Animal models of neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2018-09-24

Animal models of adult-onset neurodegenerative diseases have enhanced the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, frontotemporal dementia, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 4 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 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