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.

By 12 months after discharge, of those discharged with new or additional ADL disability, 41.3% died, 28.6% were alive but had not recovered to baseline function, and 30.1% were at baseline function. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Impaired everyday function is a diagnostic criterion for dementia, and a determinant of healthcare utilization and caregiver burden. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

A comprehensive search of relevant databases, hand searching and cross referencing found 685 articles that were assessed for relevance to the review. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Emotion recognition progresses from a deficit in low-intensity fearful facial recognition in a-MCI phase to a deficit in all intensities and emotions in mild AD. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) creates three-dimensional maps of disease-related differences in brain structure, based on nonlinearly registering brain MRI scans to a common image template. 4 key findings →

Participants: 120 Evidence: low

Lymphatic drainage of the brain and the pathophysiology of neurological disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2008-11-11

There are no conventional lymphatics in the brain but physiological studies have revealed a substantial and immunologically significant lymphatic drainage from brain to cervical lymph nodes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP-43) has been recently described as a major pathological protein in both frontotemporal dementia with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Surrogates were accurate in the majority of cases, made errors in 12% to 22% of cases, and were uncertain in 11% to 16% of cases. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cardiac 123I-MIBG findings are similar among idiopathic RBD and the syndromes of PD and DLB, but differ from those of PSP and MSA. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 95 Evidence: low

To evaluate the impact hospice enrollment has on the terminal care of patients with dementia and describe the symptom burden these patients experience, caregivers of dementia decedents were assessed in a mortality follow-back survey. 5 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: low

Understanding nutrition, depression and mental illnesses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Indian Journal of Psychiatry 2008-01-01

The most common mental disorders that are currently prevalent in numerous countries are depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).[2] The dietary intake pattern of the general population in many Asian and American countries reflects that they are often deficient in many nutrients, especially essential vitamins, minerals, and omega-3 fatty acids.[3] A notable feature of the diets of patients suffering from mental disorders is the severity of deficiency in these nutrients.[3] Studies have indicated that daily supplements of vital nutrients are often effective in reducing patients' symptoms.[4] Supplements containing amino acids have also been found to reduce symptoms, as they are converted to neurotransmitters which in turn alleviate depression and other mental health problems.[4] On the basis of accumulating scientific evidence, an effective therapeutic intervention is emerging, namely nutritional supplement/treatment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Among mild to moderate AD patients, enrolled in an actual clinical trial, these results suggest evidence based guidelines for using the MacCAT-CR understanding subscale to help guide judgments about whether a patient has the capacity to consent. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

A critical evaluation of the Braak staging scheme for Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2008-11-01

Braak and colleagues have proposed that, within the central nervous system, Parkinson's disease (PD) begins as a synucleinopathy in nondopaminergic structures of the lower brainstem or in the olfactory bulb. 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