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 1,401–1,425 of 2,146 studies · tagged Early Stage (page 57 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.

Progression to dementia in clinical subtypes of mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2006-05-04

When the clinical syndrome of MCI evolves on a neurodegenerative basis, the multiple-domain type of MCI has a less favorable prognosis than the amnestic type and may represent a more advanced prodromal stage of dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 32 Evidence: low

Study objectives To evaluate the role of orexin-A with respect to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers, and explore its relationship to cognition and sleep characteristics in a group of cognitively normal elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurofibrillary degeneration in the nucleus basalis and a loss of its cortical cholinergic projections are prominent components of the neuropathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

25 older individuals with MCI performed a visual scene encoding task during fMRI scanning, and were followed clinically for at least 4 years after scanning. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent studies indicate that there is a marked reduction in trkA-containing nucleus basalis neurons in end-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

From a prospective Memory Clinic cohort including consecutively referred patients, age 60 years or above, and with MMSE score 20 or above, 36 patients with AD and 30 with MCI were included in this study. 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

Arterial spin labeled MRI in prodromal Alzheimer's disease: A multi-site study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2013-04-30

We examined differences in cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by Arterial Spin Labeled perfusion MRI (ASL MRI) across the continuum from cognitively normal (CN) older adults to mild Alzheimer's Disease (AD) using data from the multi-site Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

The objective of this analysis was to develop a nonlinear disease progression model, using an expanded set of covariates that captures the longitudinal Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

• SCD patients showed attenuation of sensory (P1, N1, P2) and cognitive (P300, P600, P900) components, with performance-related gains. • MCI patients exhibited neural compensations, reversing the downward trend observed in SCD, which resulted in a non-monotonic pattern of ERPs. • The progression of cognitive decline was linked to electrophysiological discontinuity, suggesting resilience mechanisms in both low and higher order cognitive regions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 178 Evidence: moderate

SSRI treatment showed no significant effect on AD dementia progression (hazard ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 4.38) or cognitive trajectories, regardless of AD pathology. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is increasingly recognised as a potential preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease, yet the physiological mechanisms underlying its progression remain poorly understood. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Dementia syndromes involve cognitive but also early motor impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

The relation between vitamin A (VA) level and cognitive function and the underlying mechanisms have not been thoroughly investigated. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,817 Evidence: low

BackgroundLet's Talk Tech (LTT) is a self-administered web intervention for people with memory loss and their care partners that supports decision-making about digital health technologies. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Florbetapir F 18 appears to have a wide effective dose range and a high test-retest reliability for both quantitative (SUVr) values and visual assessment of the ligand.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to enhance the effects of cognitive training. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Comparative effectiveness of behavioral interventions to mitigate the impacts of degeneration-based cognitive decline is not well understood. 4 key findings →

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