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 276–300 of 329 studies published 2013 · free to read (page 12 of 14) · 30,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 329 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.

Risk factors for the progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Clinics in geriatric medicine 2013-11-01

The increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment among the older adult population warrants attention to the identification of practices that may minimize the progression of early forms of cognitive impairment, including the transitional stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), to permanent stages of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Advances in automatic text classification have been necessitated by the rapid increase in the availability of digital documents. 5 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) results, in part, from the excess accumulation of the amyloid-β (Aβ) peptide as neuritic plaques in the brain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

γ-Secretase is an intramembrane aspartyl protease that cleaves the amyloid precursor protein to produce neurotoxic β-amyloid peptides (i.e. Aβ42) that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurofibrillary tangles, one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD), are composed of paired helical filaments of abnormally hyperphosphorylated tau. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tau-aggregation inhibitor therapy for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Biochemical pharmacology 2013-12-19

Many trials of drugs aimed at preventing or clearing β-amyloid pathology have failed to demonstrate efficacy in recent years and further trials continue with drugs aimed at the same targets and mechanisms. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

The association between an AD-like signature using the established biomarkers Aβ42, T-tau, and P-tau with increased levels of NFL provides in vivo evidence of an association between AD and subcortical axonal degeneration in this uniquely large dataset of CSF samples tested for dementia biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Significantly increased levels of oxidized nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids have been described in the brains of subjects with Alzheimer disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) as well as young adults with Down syndrome, compared to age-matched controls. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The results suggest that it is possible to automatically quantify the task quality of smart home activities and perform limited assessment of the cognitive health of individual if smart home activities are properly chosen and learning algorithms are appropriately trained. 3 key findings →

Participants: 263 Evidence: low

Genetics of Alzheimer's disease in Caribbean Hispanic and African American populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2013-07-25

Late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), which is characterized by progressive deterioration in cognition, function, and behavior, is the most common cause of dementia and the sixth leading cause of all deaths, placing a considerable burden on Western societies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) can manifest as a spectrum of clinical syndromes, ranging from behavioural impairment to language or motor dysfunction. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Regulation of TREM2 expression by an NF-кB-sensitive miRNA-34a

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Neuroreport 2013-04-01

Genetic deficits and loss of function for the triggering receptor expressed in myeloid cells 2 (TREM2; encoded at chr6p21.1), a transmembrane spanning stimulatory receptor of the immunoglobulin/lectin-like gene superfamily, have been associated with deficiencies in phagocytosis and the innate immune system in Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

γ-Secretase generates amyloid β-protein (Aβ), a pathogenic molecule in Alzheimer disease, through the intramembrane cleavage of the β-carboxyl-terminal fragment (βCTF) of β-amyloid precursor protein. 4 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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