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 251–275 of 502 studies published 2020 · free to read (page 11 of 21) · 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.

Socioeconomic Status Mediates Racial Differences Seen Using the AT(N) Framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2020-11-07

Future studies should emphasize collection of relevant psychosocial factors in addition to the development of intentional diversity and inclusion efforts to improve the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic representativeness of AD studies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 131 Evidence: low

Though it is not without inherent challenges, fNIRS may have advantages over other neuroimaging techniques in the areas of speech and language impairment. fNIRS has clinical applications that may lead to improved early and differential diagnosis, increase our understanding of response to treatment, improve neuroprosthetic functioning, and advance neurofeedback. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We demonstrated that it was both feasible and acceptable to set up these sensors in the community and unobtrusively collect data. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 59 Evidence: low

As researchers across the globe have focused their attention on understanding SARS-CoV-2, the picture that is emerging is that of a virus that has serious effects on the vasculature in multiple organ systems including the cerebral vasculature. 5 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

A population of more than six million people worldwide at high risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are those with Down Syndrome (DS, caused by trisomy 21 (T21)), 70% of whom develop dementia during lifetime, caused by an extra copy of β-amyloid-(Aβ)-precursor-protein gene. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Compared to controls, mean CSF NPTX2 levels were lower in DS at all AD stages; aDS (0.6-fold, adj.p 0.07). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Neuroinflammation is an important host defense response to secondary brain injury after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). 4 key findings →

Participants: 216 Evidence: low

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

Population health research is increasingly focused on the genetic determinants of healthy ageing, but there is no public resource of whole genome sequences and phenotype data from healthy elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

ATP13A2 deficiency disrupts lysosomal polyamine export

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nature 2020-01-29

ATP13A2 (PARK9) is a late endolysosomal transporter that is genetically implicated in a spectrum of neurodegenerative disorders, including Kufor-Rakeb syndrome-a parkinsonism with dementia 1 -and early-onset Parkinson's disease 2 . 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

An update on blood-based biomarkers for non-Alzheimer neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2020-04-22

Cerebrospinal fluid analyses and neuroimaging can identify the underlying pathophysiology at the earliest stage of some neurodegenerative disorders, but do not have the scalability needed for population screening. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Defining a signature of cortical regions of interest preferentially affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology may offer improved sensitivity to early AD compared to hippocampal volume or mesial temporal lobe alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 588 Evidence: moderate

Polygenic risk scores have identified that genetic variants without genome-wide significance still add to the genetic risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Data collection will begin in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan) in February 2020 and is expected to be completed in June 2021. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

↑ 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