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.

Virus exposure and neurodegenerative disease risk across national biobanks

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neuron 2023-01-19

With recent findings connecting the Epstein-Barr virus to an increased risk of multiple sclerosis and growing concerns regarding the neurological impact of the coronavirus pandemic, we examined potential links between viral exposures and neurodegenerative disease risk. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

DCPS modulates TDP-43-linked neurodegeneration through P-body-mediated RNA decay

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neuron 2026-03-09

The proteinopathy of the RNA-binding protein TDP-43, characterized by nuclear clearance and cytoplasmic inclusion, is a hallmark of multiple neurodegenerative diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genetic variations in MS4A4A and MS4A6A Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) are linked to the regulation of cerebrospinal-fluid-soluble TREM2 levels and are associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk and progression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuronal loss is the central issue in Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet no treatment developed so far can halt AD-associated neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

APOE genotype determines cell-type-specific pathological landscape of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neuron 2025-03-19

The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the strongest genetic risk modifier for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with the APOE4 allele increasing risk and APOE2 decreasing it compared with the common APOE3 allele. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Molecular pathways and diagnosis in spatially resolved Alzheimer's hippocampal atlas

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neuron 2025-03-31

We employed Stereo-seq combined with single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) to investigate the gene expression and cell composition changes in human hippocampus with or without Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Highly penetrant autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) comprises a distinct disease entity as compared to the far more prevalent form of AD in which common variants collectively contribute to risk. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Through the generation of humanized FUS mice expressing full-length human FUS, we identify that when expressed at near endogenous murine FUS levels, both wild-type and ALS-causing and frontotemporal dementia (FTD)-causing mutations complement the essential function(s) of murine FUS. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In this issue of Neuron, Wang et al. employ an impressive multi-omics approach, including gene co-expression network analyses and drug repositioning, to normalize disease-disrupted gene modules and identify a therapeutically relevant driver of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

People with Down syndrome (DS) have increased risk of Alzheimer disease (AD), presumably conferred through genetic predispositions arising from trisomy 21. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

C9orf72 deficiency promotes microglial-mediated synaptic loss in aging and amyloid accumulation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Neuron 2021-06-15

C9orf72 repeat expansions cause inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)/frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and result in both loss of C9orf72 protein expression and production of potentially toxic RNA and dipeptide repeat proteins. 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 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