alzhub.org
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.

Research

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 451–475 of 607 studies in Neurology · free to read (page 19 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Medial temporal lobe atrophy on MRI scans and the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2008-12-01

Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scores 1) distinguish probable Alzheimer disease (AD) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects from nonamnestic MCI and no cognitive impairment (NCI) subjects, 2) help predict diagnosis at baseline, and 3) predict transition from NCI to MCI and from MCI to probable AD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 117 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

MRI cortical thickness biomarker predicts AD-like CSF and cognitive decline in normal adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2011-12-21

This approach to the detection of individuals at high risk for preclinical AD-identified in single CN individuals using this quantitative ADsig MRI biomarker-may provide investigators with a population enriched for AD pathobiology and with a relatively high likelihood of imminent cognitive decline consistent with prodromal AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The significance of medial temporal lobe atrophy: a postmortem MRI study in the very old

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2007-10-01

Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) on postmortem MRI is sensitive to primary degenerative hippocampal pathology in the very old, but not specific for Alzheimer-type pathology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 132 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neuropathologic comorbidity and cognitive impairment in the Nun and Honolulu-Asia Aging Studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2016-02-17

Total burden of comorbid neuropathologic abnormalities, rather than any single lesion type, was the most relevant determinant of cognitive impairment in both cohorts, often despite clinical diagnosis of only AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

CSF biomarkers in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with known pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2008-05-01

It is important to distinguish FTLD from other neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer disease (AD), but this may be difficult clinically because of atypical presentations. 4 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Reduced CSF p-Tau181 to Tau ratio is a biomarker for FTLD-TDP

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2013-10-30

Antemortem CSF samples were collected from 30 patients with FTLD in a single-center validation cohort, and CSF levels of 5 putative FTLD-TDP biomarkers as well as levels of total Tau (t-Tau) and Tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-Tau181) were measured using independent assays. 4 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Sequence of Alzheimer disease biomarker changes in cognitively normal adults: A cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2020-09-01

Cross-sectional data, including CSF analytes, molecular imaging of cerebral fibrillar β-amyloid (Aβ) with PET using the [ 11 C] benzothiazole tracer Pittsburgh compound B (PiB), MRI-based brain structures, and clinical/cognitive outcomes harmonized from 8 studies, collectively involving 3,284 cognitively normal individuals 18 to 101 years of age, were analyzed. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Optical coherence tomography identifies outer retina thinning in frontotemporal degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2017-09-08

Using a cross-sectional design, we examined retinal structure in 38 consecutively enrolled patients with FTD and 44 controls using a standard SD-OCT protocol. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 46 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Longitudinal Relationships of White Matter Hyperintensities and Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers Across the Adult Life Span

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2023-05-18

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) correlate with Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers cross-sectionally and modulate AD pathogenesis. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

CSF α-Synuclein Seed Amplification Assays and Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers in Dementia With Lewy Bodies: Presentation and Progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2025-11-17

α-Synuclein (αSyn) seed amplification assays (SAAs) accurately detect αSyn pathology in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cognitive and Biomarker Signatures of Late-Onset Temporal Lobe Epilepsy: Toward Non-Alzheimer Neurodegenerative Mechanisms

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2026-08-04

Late-onset unexplained epilepsy (LOUE) represents a substantial proportion of epilepsies with onset after 50 years and often manifests as temporal lobe epilepsy (LO-TLE). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of Body Mass Index in Late Life, and Change from Midlife to Late Life, With Incident Dementia in the ARIC Study Participants

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2025-04-11

A total of 5,129 participants were included in the study (59% female; 22% identified as Black; mean (standard deviation) age at visit 5 of 75 (5) years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,026 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Application of the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association AD criteria to ADNI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2013-05-03

A large proportion of subjects with AD dementia in ADNI may be categorized more definitively as high-probability AD using the proposed biomarker scheme in the NIA-AA criteria. 4 key findings →

Participants: 211 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Topographic Distribution of Amyloid-β, Tau, and Atrophy in Patients With Behavioral/Dysexecutive Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2020-10-22

Our results provide evidence of frontal cortical involvement of tau pathology in behavioral/dysexecutive AD and highlight the need for consensus clinical criteria in this syndrome. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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