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 851–875 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage (page 35 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.

Scalable diagnostic screening of mild cognitive impairment using AI dialogue agent

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Scientific reports 2020-03-31

The search for early biomarkers of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been central to the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and dementia research community in recent years. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Mild-cognitive impairment (MCI) occurs in up to one-fifth of individuals over the age of 65, with approximately a third of MCI individuals converting to dementia in later life. 2 key findings →

Participants: 122 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid PET and cognitive decline in cognitively normal individuals: the SCIENCe project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2019-03-08

We examined the relationships between amyloid-β PET and concurrent and longitudinal cognitive performance in 107 cognitively normal individuals with subjective cognitive decline (age: 64 ± 8 years, 44% female, Mini-Mental State Examination score 29 ± 1). 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The combined model (Harrell's C = 0.82 [0.78-0.86]) was significantly superior to demographics (β = 0.100, P < .001), magnetic resonance imaging (β = 0.037, P = .011), and PET only models (β = 0.053, P = .003).The models can be used to calculate individualized risk, for example, a female MCI patient (age = 60, APOE ε4 positive, Mini-Mental State Examination = 25, hippocampal volume = 5.8 cm3, amyloid PET positive) has 35% (19-57) risk in one year and 85% (64-97) risk in three years. 3 key findings →

Participants: 411 Evidence: moderate

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD), as expressed by older adults, is associated with negative affect, which, in turn, is a likely risk factor for Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 51 Evidence: low

The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was proposed to account for the discrepancy between levels of brain pathologic features or damage and clinical and cognitive function. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cognitive Reserve from the Perspective of Preclinical Alzheimer Disease: 2020 Update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Clinics in geriatric medicine 2019-11-15

The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) was proposed to account for the discrepancy between levels of brain pathologic process or damage and clinical and cognitive function. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Increased p-tau181 was observed for both ɛ4 carriers and non-carriers close to AD onset, but exclusively for ɛ4 carriers in the early preclinical groups (7- and 13-years pre-AD). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our study confirms a lack of suitability of CSF C3 and FH as diagnostic biomarkers of AD, but points to their modest potential as prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets in cognitively impaired patients. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Osteoporosis and Alzheimer's disease (AD) mainly affect older individuals, and the possibility of an underlying link contributing to their shared epidemiological features has rarely been investigated. 4 key findings →

Participants: 65 Evidence: low

A subgroup cohort of 57 eyes from 32 participants with recent Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) results, comprising 18 preclinical patients (Aβ PET + ve, 32 eyes) and 14 controls (Aβ PET -ve, 25 eyes) with a mean age of 69 vs. 66, p = 0.06, was included for the assessment of a multimodal model to distinguish between the two groups. 3 key findings →

Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate

These results suggest that emerging biomarkers in conjunction with core AD markers improve diagnosis of AD, are associated with the conversion from MCI into AD, and predict a faster progression of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 319 Evidence: moderate

Synaptic alterations in CA1 in mild Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2007-05-01

These results strongly support the concept that synapse loss is a structural correlate involved very early in cognitive decline in mild Alzheimer disease (mAD) and supports mild cognitive impairment as a transitional stage between mAD and no cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

It introduces criteria to determine whether an image is associated with an intermediate-to-high likelihood of pathologic AD or with having any identifiable cortical amyloid level above that seen in low-risk young controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: moderate

PET amyloid ligand [11C]PIB uptake is increased in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2007-05-01

The SPM analysis showed that patients with MCI had significantly higher [(11)C]PIB uptake vs control subjects in the frontal, parietal, and lateral temporal cortices as well as in the posterior cingulate showing the most prominent differences. 4 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

Studies have shown that donepezil could reduce the AD assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) score in MCI patients and improve the patient's attention and speed of response; however, it also has many side effects. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Observational studies and pilot trials suggest that metformin may help prevent cognitive decline in neurodegenerative disorders. 3 key findings →

Participants: 326 Evidence: high

We investigated the prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and the factors associate with risk of dementia from a representative nationwide sample of Korean elders. 8,199 randomly-sampled Koreans aged 65 years or older were invited to participate in the Phase I screening assessment using Mini-Mental State Examination by door-to-door home visit, and 6,141 subjects (response rate = 74.9%) responded. 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,141 Evidence: low

The demographics of aging suggest a great need for the early diagnosis of dementia and the development of preventive strategies. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

MoCA test better meets the criteria for screening tests for the detection of MCI among patients over 60 years of age than MMSE. 2 key findings →

Participants: 9,350 Evidence: low

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