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 301–325 of 607 studies in Neurology · free to read (page 13 of 25) · 30,980 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.

Cholinesterase inhibitors benefit patients with AD (Standard), although the average benefit appears small; vitamin E likely delays the time to clinical worsening (Guideline); selegiline, other antioxidants, anti-inflammatories, and estrogen require further study. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid markers for differential dementia diagnosis in a large memory clinic cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2011-12-14

Baseline CSF was collected from 512 patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and 272 patients with other types of dementia (OD), 135 patients with a psychiatric disorder (PSY), and 275 patients with subjective memory complaints (SMC). 4 key findings →

Participants: 512 Evidence: moderate

In this retrospective study, GAP-43 was measured in participants from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort using an in-house ELISA method, and levels were compared between groups, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. 4 key findings →

Participants: 786 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer disease (AD) is primarily associated with accumulations of amyloid plaques and tau tangles in gray matter, however, it is now acknowledged that neuroinflammation, particularly in white matter (WM), significantly contributes to the development and progression of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 310 Evidence: moderate

Genome-Wide Association Studies of ARIA From the Aducanumab Phase 3 ENGAGE and EMERGE Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2023-12-28

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) were the most common adverse events reported in the phase 3 ENGAGE and EMERGE trials of aducanumab, an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,691 Evidence: moderate

Intracranial atherosclerosis and dementia: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2017-03-22

From 2011 to 2013, 1,744 participants completed high-resolution vessel wall MRI from the population-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study by a sampling strategy that allowed weighting back to the cohort. 4 key findings →

Participants: 291 Evidence: moderate

Among 298 participants (MCI, n = 56; NC, n = 242; mean age 75.1 years; 45.6% female), the groups were similar in age, sex, race, and APOE ε4 status at baseline, as well as in most driving behaviors. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 298 Evidence: early

CSF synaptic biomarkers increase in the early preclinical stages of the Alzheimer continuum even when a low burden of Aβ pathology is present, and they differ in their association with age, sex, APOE ε4 , and markers of neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Data-driven WMH spatial patterns reflect discrete underlying etiologies including arteriolosclerosis, CAA, AD, and normal aging. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

These findings suggest that DPP-4i use is associated with low amyloid burden and favorable long-term cognitive outcome in diabetic patients with ADCI. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

The proposed novel, pragmatic method to determine CSF biomarker cutoffs for AD does not require assessment of other biomarkers or assumptions concerning the clinical diagnosis of patients. 1 key finding →

Participants: 497 Evidence: low

This comprehensive analysis demonstrated that the variance in AD blood biomarker concentrations was mainly explained by age, with minor contributions from cognition, brain atrophy, and genetics, conversely to CSF measures. 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,323 Evidence: low

These findings suggest EPVS burden to be a potential marker of both CSVD and AD-related BBM pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 979 Evidence: moderate

Mediterranean diet and Alzheimer disease mortality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2007-09-01

Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MeDi) may affect not only risk for Alzheimer disease (AD) but also subsequent disease course: Higher adherence to the MeDi is associated with lower mortality in AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 192 Evidence: low

Risk factors for dementia with Lewy bodies: a case-control study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2013-07-26

Smoking and education, which have opposing risk effects on AD and PD, are not risk factors for DLB; however, depression and low caffeine intake, both risk factors for AD and PD, increase risk of DLB more strongly than in either. 2 key findings →

Participants: 147 Evidence: moderate

Sex differences in CSF biomarkers vary by Alzheimer disease stage and APOE ε4 genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2020-08-11

Within APOE ε4 carriers, sex differences in CSF p-Tau are more evident in early disease stages, whereas for APOE ε4 noncarriers, sex differences are more evident in advanced disease stages. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,801 Evidence: low

Clinical criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease include insidious onset and progressive impairment of memory and other cognitive functions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Antemortem MRI findings correlate with hippocampal neuropathology in typical aging and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2002-03-01

Individuals with an isolated pathologic diagnosis of AD, hippocampal sclerosis, frontotemporal degeneration, and neurofibrillary tangle--only degeneration usually had substantial hippocampal atrophy, while those with changes of typical aging did not. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: low

Prevalence, characteristics, and survival of frontotemporal lobar degeneration syndromes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2016-04-01

Key features of this study include the revised diagnostic criteria with improved specificity and sensitivity, an unrestricted age range, and simultaneous assessment of multiple FTLD syndromes. 3 key findings →

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.

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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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