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 653 studies of type cross-sectional study · free to read (page 15 of 27) · 31,380 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.

One-third of adults with neurological conditions in China have low health literacy, with pronounced socioeconomic and geographic disparities. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,120 Evidence: low

In the whole population (N = 1,214,286) and the subpopulation (N = 88,565), 5 % had no risk factors, 12 % had only one, and 82 % had multiple. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,214,286 Evidence: moderate

11 variables were critical in the training phase, including educational level, depression, insomnia, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), medication count, gender, stenting, systolic blood pressure (sbp), neurosis and rapid eye movement. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,379 Evidence: low

Our aim is to examine the interplay between cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) pathology, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) related amyloid-β (Aβ) clearance, and cognition in general population. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,026 Evidence: moderate

This study included 3540 participants with RVC data and 489 with WMH data (median [IQR] age: 73.2 [71.4-76.3] and 72.5 [71.2-75.4] years; female: 52.9% and 47.6%) over a median follow-up of 7.4 [IQR 5.5-8.5] and 3.8 [IQR 2.9-5.3] years, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,540 Evidence: moderate

Although pathogenic variants in PSEN1 leading to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) are highly penetrant, substantial interindividual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change are observed in ADAD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Bile acids (BAs) may contribute to dementia by regulating neuroinflammation and influencing gut-brain axis signaling, especially in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Healthcare costs are already elevated in early subjective and objective cognitive impairment, driven by formal and informal care. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

There is growing evidence that cognitive decline can be affected by both nutritional aspects and inflammation. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 116 Evidence: low

Our data suggest that vascular abnormalities, independently of blood pressure levels, may play a role in the setting of subjective memory complaints as well as of WMH in elderly hypertensive patients. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Amnestic forms of MCI appear to have demographic, genetic, and MRI findings suggestive of Alzheimer disease pathology, whereas the nonamnestic forms of MCI have findings suggestive of vascular disease. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 153 Evidence: low

Higher arterial stiffness and pulsatility were associated with MCI and dementia in white participants. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

A gradient boosted machine (GBM) predicted the presence of AD as a function of gender, age, education, socioeconomic status (SES), and a mini-mental state exam (MMSE). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Longitudinal Dynamics of the Blood Proteome Within the Alzheimer Spectrum in Down Syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2026-09-01

In DS, longitudinal characterization of all previously identified proteins revealed distinct trajectories over time and an association of baseline levels with future cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 59 Evidence: moderate

Optical Coherence Tomography in Alzheimer's Disease and Other Neurodegenerative Diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Frontiers in neurology 2017-12-19

Over the past decade, a surge of evidence has documented various pathological processes in the retina of patients suffering from mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and other neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

MRI and CSF studies in the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of internal medicine 2004-09-01

In cross-section and longitudinally, our results show that evaluations of the P-tau231 level are highly correlated with reductions in the MRI hippocampal volume and by using CSF and MRI measures together one improves the separation of NL and MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

CSF sTREM2 increased with systemic and CNS HIV-1 disease severity, with the highest levels found in patients with HIV-associated dementia (HAD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are non-cognitive symptoms commonly associated to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,014 Evidence: low

The present study investigated the ability of the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT), a picture naming test recently added to the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's (NACC) Uniform Data Set neuropsychological test battery, to detect naming impairment (i.e., dysnomia) across stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,981 Evidence: low

The 32 796 872 Medicare beneficiaries in the cohort had a mean (SD) age of 74.0 (12.5) years and included 18 228 513 females (55.6%). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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.

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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events