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 genetic underpinnings of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remain largely elusive despite early successes in identifying three genes that cause early-onset familial AD (those that encode amyloid precursor protein (APP) and the presenilins (PSEN1 and PSEN2)), and one genetic risk factor for late-onset AD (the gene that encodes apolipoprotein E (APOE)). 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The probabilistic model of Alzheimer disease: the amyloid hypothesis revised

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2021-11-23

The current conceptualization of Alzheimer disease (AD) is driven by the amyloid hypothesis, in which a deterministic chain of events leads from amyloid deposition and then tau deposition to neurodegeneration and progressive cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurovascular pathways to neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease and other disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2011-11-03

This article examines mechanisms of blood-brain barrier dysfunction in neurodegenerative disorders, notably Alzheimer's disease, and highlights therapeutic opportunities relating to these neurovascular deficits.

Evidence: low

Immune attack: the role of inflammation in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2015-06-01

The past two decades of research into the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) have been driven largely by the amyloid hypothesis; the neuroinflammation that is associated with AD has been assumed to be merely a response to pathophysiological events. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Stress granules and neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2019-10-03

Recent advances suggest that the response of RNA metabolism to stress has an important role in the pathophysiology of neurodegenerative diseases, particularly amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, frontotemporal dementias and Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The many faces of α-synuclein: from structure and toxicity to therapeutic target

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2013-01-01

Disorders characterized by α-synuclein (α-syn) accumulation, Lewy body formation and parkinsonism (and in some cases dementia) are collectively known as Lewy body diseases. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A genetic cause of Alzheimer disease: mechanistic insights from Down syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2015-08-05

Down syndrome, which arises in individuals carrying an extra copy of chromosome 21, is associated with a greatly increased risk of early-onset Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Mr M, a patient with semantic dementia--a neurodegenerative disease that is characterized by the gradual deterioration of semantic memory--was being driven through the countryside to visit a friend and was able to remind his wife where to turn along the not-recently-travelled route. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is increasing appreciation that non-neuronal cells contribute to the initiation, progression and pathology of diverse neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

TREM2 variants: new keys to decipher Alzheimer disease pathogenesis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2016-02-25

Genome-wide association studies have identified rare variants of the gene that encodes triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) - an immune receptor that is found in brain microglia - as risk factors for non-familial Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The changing scene of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2013-03-06

Several recent breakthroughs have provided notable insights into the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), with some even shifting our thinking about this neurodegenerative disease and raising the question as to whether this disorder is a proteinopathy, a ribonucleopathy or both. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cytoplasmic aggregation of TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP43; also known as TARDBP or TDP-43) is a key pathological feature of several neurodegenerative diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 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