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

Showing 351–375 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage (page 15 of 86) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

Our study indicates that changes in PVS-related MRI parameters occur in MCI and AD, possibly due to impairment of the glymphatic system. 3 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

Among the evaluated parameters, the only significant predictor of conversion to AD was non-Cp copper (hazard ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.03-1.47, p = 0.022); for each additional micromole per liter unit (μmol/l) of non-Cp copper, the hazard increased by ~20%. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 42 Evidence: high

After 12 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between MLI+EGCG and MLI+placebo in the PACC-exe (adjusted mean difference [AMD]: 0.12; 95%CI: -0.01, 0.24; p=0.061). 4 key findings →

Participants: 129 Evidence: high

A brief DMA combined with plasma pTau217 identifies a subset of cognitively unimpaired, amyloid-positive older adults at highest risk for cognitive and biomarker progression. 2 key findings →

Participants: 818 Evidence: high

PE improves global cognitive function (SMD = 0.348 [95 % CI 0.166 to 0.529]; p = 0.0001), executive function (SMD = 0.213 [95 % CI 0.026 to 0.400]; p = 0.026) and delayed recall (SMD = 0.180 [95 % CI 0.002 to 0.358]; p = 0.047). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,077 Evidence: high

Parkinson's disease has a long prodromal stage with various subclinical motor and non-motor manifestations; however, their evolution in the years before Parkinson's disease is diagnosed is unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and reported quantitative gait (n = 11) or postural balance (n = 4) parameters to be included in the meta-analysis. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Hippocampal and entorhinal atrophy in mild cognitive impairment: prediction of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2007-03-01

Hippocampal and entorhinal cortex volumes were each largest in controls, intermediate in MCI nonconverters, and smallest in MCI converters to AD (37 of 139 patients converted to AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 139 Evidence: low

Imaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in early preclinical alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2016-07-25

CSF Aβ42 levels are tightly coupled with cortical amyloid load in the earliest stages of preclinical AD, and begin to decrease dramatically prior to the point when an abnormal threshold of cortical accumulation is detected with amyloid imaging. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate

Progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia in clinic- vs community-based cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2009-09-01

These findings add to the growing literature to suggest that the degree of functional impairment at baseline is an important predictor of conversion to dementia and may help explain differences in findings between epidemiological and clinic-based studies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

Prognosis of mild cognitive impairment in early Parkinson disease: the Norwegian ParkWest study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2013-05-01

Significantly more patients with MCI than without MCI at baseline (10 of 37 [27.0%] vs 1 of 145 [0.7%]; relative risk, 39.2 [95% CI, 5.2-296.5]; P Conclusions and relevance Mild cognitive impairment at PD diagnosis predicts a highly increased risk for early dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 182 Evidence: moderate

Low daytime SBP was independently associated with a greater progression of cognitive decline in older patients with dementia and MCI among those treated with AHDs. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 172 Evidence: moderate

The prevalence of A+T+N+F+ profile was 66.24% in clinically diagnosed AD dementia patients; similarly, the majority of individuals with reduced FDG-PET were AD dementia subjects. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 551 Evidence: moderate

Due to the growing number of older adults with cognitive impairment, it is essential to delay the onset and progression of cognitive decline and promote a healthy lifestyle. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

From across this tag

10 of the 2,141 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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