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 607 studies in Neurology · free to read (page 15 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.

Blood pressure variability is an emerging risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, but mechanisms remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Motor signs predict poor outcomes in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2005-05-01

A total of 533 patients with AD at early stages (mean Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 21/30 at entry) were recruited and followed semiannually for up to 13.1 years (mean 3) in five University-based AD centers in the United States and European Union. 4 key findings →

Participants: 533 Evidence: moderate

Glucose indices are associated with cognitive and structural brain measures in young adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2015-05-06

The sample included dementia-free participants (mean age 40 ± 9 years; 53% women) of the Framingham Heart Study third-generation cohort with cognitive testing of memory, abstract reasoning, visual perception, attention, and executive function (n = 2,126). 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,126 Evidence: moderate

Income, Race-Ethnicity, and Dementia Risk Factors in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2025-11-12

There were 13,145 individuals with risk factor data between 2015 and 2018 (51.1% aged 18-44, 31.0% aged 45-64, and 17.9% aged ≥65 years; 51.5% female after survey-weighting). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13,145 Evidence: low

< 0.01). Using an operationalization of clinical criteria for LATE, 8.2% of participants with MCI or dementia from our tertiary memory clinic were classified as Possible-LATE, Probable-LATE, or LATE-AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Rates of β-amyloid accumulation are independent of hippocampal neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2014-04-04

We describe a 2-feature biomarker approach to classifying elderly CN subjects that is complementary to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association preclinical staging criteria. 2 key findings →

Participants: 252 Evidence: low

Finding Treatment Effects in Alzheimer Trials in the Face of Disease Progression Heterogeneity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2021-06-01

Individuals with early AD show heterogeneity in disease progression, which increases when stratifying on risk factors associated with progression. 3 key findings →

Participants: 302 Evidence: low

Our results reveal a spatial association between the epileptogenic focus and tau deposition, amyloid deposition, and neurodegeneration in early clinical stages of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Midlife NAFLD shows associations with AD and accumulating vascular pathology, revealing potential pathways linking liver function to dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,706 Evidence: low

Improved discrimination of AD patients using beta-amyloid(1-42) and tau levels in CSF

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 1999-05-01

The combined measure of CSF Abeta42 and tau meets the requirements for clinical use in discriminating AD from normal aging and specific neurologic disorders. 4 key findings →

Participants: 84 Evidence: low

Conversion of amyloid positive and negative MCI to AD over 3 years: an 11C-PIB PET study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-08

PIB-positive subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are significantly more likely to convert to AD than PIB-negative patients, faster converters having higher PIB retention levels at baseline than slower converters. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment with suspected nonamyloid pathology (SNAP): Prediction of progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2015-01-07

The proportion of progressors was 11% (8/41), 34% (14/41), 56% (19/34), and 71% (60/85) in A-N-, A+N-, SNAP, and A+N+, respectively; the proportion of APOE ε4 carriers was 29%, 70%, 31%, and 71%, respectively, with the SNAP group featuring a significantly different proportion than both A+N- and A+N+ groups (p ≤ 0.005). 2 key findings →

Participants: 201 Evidence: low

Extent and distribution of white matter hyperintensities in normal aging, MCI, and AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2006-12-01

Differences in white matter hyperintensities (WMH) associated with increasing cognitive impairment appear related to both extent and spatial location. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 26 Evidence: low

Hypoperfusion in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease by arterial spin labeling MRI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2006-10-01

Frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease display different spatial distributions of hypoperfusion on arterial spin labeling MRI. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Anatomical heterogeneity of Alzheimer disease: based on cortical thickness on MRIs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2014-10-24

This cluster analysis of cortical thickness of the entire brain showed that AD dementia in the earlier stages can be categorized into various anatomical subtypes, with distinct clinical features. 5 key findings →

Participants: 52 Evidence: low

Association of Digital Clock Drawing With PET Amyloid and Tau Pathology in Normal Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2021-02-15

DCTclock discriminates between diagnostic groups and improves upon traditional cognitive tests for detecting biomarkers of amyloid and tau pathology in CN older adults. 3 key findings →

Participants: 300 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