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 551–575 of 607 studies in Neurology · free to read (page 23 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.

β-Amyloid-Dependent and -Independent Genetic Pathways Regulating CSF Tau Biomarkers in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2022-08-01

Genetic pathways implicated in causing AD are related to altered levels of soluble tau through both Aβ-dependent and Aβ-independent mechanisms, which may have relevance for anti-tau drug development. 3 key findings →

Participants: 751 Evidence: low

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated With Serum GFAP Levels in an Ethnically Diverse Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2023-10-01

A total of 1,156 Mexican American and 587 non-Hispanic White participants were included (mean age = 68 years, standard deviation = 10; 65% female). 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,156 Evidence: low

Subcortical vascular dementia: integrating neuropsychological and neuroradiologic data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2005-08-01

A profile of equal impairment on tests of executive control and memory along with radiologic evidence involving about one-fourth of the cerebral white matter as measured by the Leukoaraiosis Scale may be sufficient for a diagnosis of subcortical vascular dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Educational attainment and cognitive decline in old age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2009-02-01

The results suggest that education is robustly associated with level of cognitive function but not with rate of cognitive decline and that the former association primarily accounts for education's correlation with risk of dementia in old age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Clinicopathologic differences among patients with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2013-01-16

During life, patients with AD pathology may be misdiagnosed with bvFTD if they have an early age at onset and prominent neuropsychiatric features despite having greater memory difficulties and more intact personality and executive functions than patients with bvFTD-FTLD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Cognitive Profile and Markers of Alzheimer Disease-Type Pathology in Patients With Lewy Body Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2021-02-16

We selected 57 patients with LBD (dementia with Lewy bodies [DLB], n = 38; Parkinson disease dementia [PDD], n = 19) with available AD CSF biomarkers and neuropsychological data. 4 key findings →

Participants: 38 Evidence: low

We examined 54 volunteers (mean age 70.0 years, 56% women, 51% APOE ɛ4 carriers) with the translocator protein (TSPO) tracer [ 11 C]PBR28 to assess neuroinflammation and with [ 11 C] Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) to assess cerebral Aβ accumulation. [ 11 C]PBR28 and [ 11 C]PiB standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were quantified in 6 regions of interests by using the cerebellar cortex as a pseudo-reference and reference region, respectively. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

They also suggest that FW elevation occurs in the locus coeruleus to transentorhinal cortex tract, nucleus basalis of Meynert, and hippocampus in the transition from CN to EMCI, while other basal forebrain regions and the entorhinal cortex are not affected until a later stage of AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

CSF biomarkers in Olmsted County: Evidence of 2 subclasses and associations with demographics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2020-06-26

We hypothesize the population without dementia can be subdivided into participants with and without biological Alzheimer disease (AD) based on the combination of CSF Aβ42 and p-tau/t-tau (represented also by the p-tau/t-tau/Aβ42 ratio). 5 key findings →

Participants: 547 Evidence: low

Association of Reproductive History With Brain MRI Biomarkers of Dementia Risk in Midlife

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2021-11-03

Reproductive history events signaling more estrogen exposure such as premenopausal status, longer reproductive span, higher number of children, and use of HT and HC were associated with larger GMV in women in midlife. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Impact of C-Reactive Protein on Cognition and Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers in Homozygous APOE ɛ4 Carriers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2021-09-20

Previous research has shown that elevated blood C-reactive protein (CRP) is associated with increased Alzheimer disease (AD) risk only in APOE ε4 allele carriers; the objective of this study was to examine the interactive effects of plasma CRP and APOE genotype on cognition and AD biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Spectrum of cognition short of dementia: Framingham Heart Study and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2015-10-09

We quantitated risk of progression to dementia in elderly persons without dementia from 2 population-based studies, the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), aged 70 to 89 years at enrollment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

ε4, socioeconomic status, physical activity, smoking, subjective cognitive decline, and various cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Of the 500 eligible participants (71% female, 95% non-Latino White, mean [SD] age at cohort dementia onset = 88 [7] years, mean [SD] years from onset to death = 4 [3]), only 54% received a timely diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Utilizing semantic intrusions to identify amyloid positivity in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2018-08-03

SIs on the LASSI-L related to PSI and frPSI uniquely differentiated Amy+ and Amy- participants with aMCI and likely reflect deficits with inhibition and source memory in preclinical AD not captured by traditional cognitive measures. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 428 older autopsied persons (mean age at death = 91 years, 70% women) considered for anti-amyloid treatment eligibility assessment, 58% had MCI and 42% had mild-stage Alzheimer dementia. 5 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