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.

TAR DNA-binding protein 43 in neurodegenerative disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2010-03-16

In 2006, TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43), a highly conserved nuclear protein, was identified as the major disease protein in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and in the most common variant of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), FTLD-U, which is characterized by cytoplasmic inclusions that stain positive for ubiquitin but negative for tau and alpha-synuclein. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuroinflammation in frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2019-07-19

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a group of progressive neurodegenerative disorders with different pathological signatures, genetic variability and complex disease mechanisms, for which no effective treatments exist. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Drug repositioning and repurposing for Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2020-09-16

Drug repositioning and repurposing can enhance traditional drug development efforts and could accelerate the identification of new treatments for individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia and mild cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Since the original description of amyloid-β plaques and tau tangles more than 100 years ago, these lesions have been considered the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The phenotypic variability of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2014-10-14

Classic textbook neurology teaches that amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a degenerative disease that selectively affects upper and lower motor neurons and is fatal 3-5 years after onset--a description which suggests that the clinical presentation of ALS is very homogenous. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Can we learn lessons from the FDA's approval of aducanumab?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2021-09-17

On 7 June 2021, aducanumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) by the FDA on the basis of amyloid-lowering effects considered reasonably likely to confer clinical benefit. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Ushering in the study and treatment of preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2013-06-11

Researchers have begun to characterize the subtle biological and cognitive processes that precede the clinical onset of Alzheimer disease (AD), and to set the stage for accelerated evaluation of experimental treatments to delay the onset, reduce the risk of, or completely prevent clinical decline. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Parkinsonism, movement disorders and genetics in frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2016-02-19

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a group of clinically and genetically heterogeneous neurodegenerative disorders that are a common cause of adult-onset behavioural and cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

White matter lesions in Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2011-02-22

Pure vascular parkinsonism without evidence of nigral Lewy body pathology may occur as a distinct clinicopathological entity, but a much more frequent occurrence is the comorbid presence of age-associated white matter lesions (WMLs) in idiopathic Parkinson disease (PD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Towards pharmacological prevention of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2025-11-03

Prevention of Alzheimer disease (AD) is a medical challenge owing to its complex pathogenesis, which involves amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau aggregation, neuroinflammation and progressive neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent high-profile failures of Alzheimer disease treatments at the clinical trial stage have led to renewed efforts to identify and test novel interventions for Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →

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 28,180 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