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 2,931 studies published 2025 · free to read (page 12 of 118) · 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.

BackgroundAccurate and accessible risk assessment tools are essential for effective dementia management. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,768 Evidence: moderate

74,396 patients (median age 84, IQR 78-89; 68% female) were analyzed. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74,396 Evidence: moderate

We identified a total of 1,686,759 patients with incident dementia (mean (SD) age, 82.15 (6.90) years; 61.70% female) and 3,373,518 matched controls (mean (SD) age, 82.15 (6.90) years; 61.70% female). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,686,759 Evidence: moderate

Eighty older adults with MCI (median age 86.50 years) participated, with an average attendance rate of 86.25% in the intervention group. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

(n = 16,683) had an average age of 69.07 ± 7.34, 72.04% were female, and had an average of 16.66 ± 2.26 years of education. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 16,683 Evidence: moderate

In 2018, Carlos et al. [2] reviewed 21 studies from the SUN project that focused on the association between the MDP and several incident chronic diseases, concluding that high Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, weight gain, metabolic syndrome, depression, cognitive decline, and nephrolithiasis, and with a lower heart rate and mitigation of the effects of obesity on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes, and our results suggested that the Mediterranean diet may improve fertility. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 79 Evidence: moderate

Among all participants, 247 (11.7%) had IADL limitations at baseline, and 151 (7.1%) developed dementia during follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,118 Evidence: moderate

CogDrisk-ML outperformed CAIDE in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts; however, it provided similar C statistics in the ARIC dataset. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Data collection commenced in November 2023 and finished in July 2024, with the enrollment of 49 older adults with MCI (n=40, 81.6%, assigned to the experimental group [EG] and n=9, 18.4%, to the control group [CG]) conducted from October 2023 to April 2024. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high

The CITA GO-ON Study, as a part of the World-Wide FINGERS network, is designed to validate the efficacy of a multidomain lifestyle intervention for dementia prevention and contribute valuable data to inform public health strategies fostering healthy, active aging. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,051 Evidence: high

Associations Between Stroke Type, Ischemic Stroke Subtypes, and Poststroke Cognitive Trajectories

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Stroke 2025-03-10

We identified 1143 dementia-free individuals with acute stroke during follow-up: 1061 (92.8%) ischemic, 82 (7.2%) hemorrhagic, 49.9% female, and 30.8% Black. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Neuro-inflammation was not reduced between the neflamapimod and placebo groups, and no change was observed in [18F]-DPA-714 PET. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high

Among 298 participants (MCI, n = 56; NC, n = 242; mean age 75.1 years; 45.6% female), the groups were similar in age, sex, race, and APOE ε4 status at baseline, as well as in most driving behaviors. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 298 Evidence: early

In the intention-to-treat analysis, dementia risk was not different between GLP1-RA and DPP4i initiators (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–1.04; rates: 6.29 versus 6.64 per 1000 person-years; mean follow-up: 6.54 years); however, continuous GLP1-RA versus DPP4i use was associated with a 21% lower risk (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64–0.97; rates: 3.64 versus 4.82; mean follow-up: 2.71 years). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 107,424 Evidence: moderate

Plasma GFAP is a prognostic biomarker in CU older adults, predicting cognitive and biological changes, with stronger associations observed in females, highlighting a possible sex-specific vulnerability. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 949 Evidence: moderate

These findings suggest EPVS burden to be a potential marker of both CSVD and AD-related BBM pathology. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 979 Evidence: moderate

Ambroxol as a Treatment for Parkinson Disease Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2025-06-30

Mean (SD) β-glucocerebrosidase levels were higher at week 26 (ambroxol, 12.45 [1.97] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 11.54-13.36 nmol/h/mg); placebo, 8.50 [1.96] nmol/h/mg; 91% CI, 7.65-9.34 nmol/h/mg; P = .05) in the ambroxol group compared with placebo. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 75 Evidence: high

APOE ε4 carriers share immune-related proteomic changes across neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature medicine 2025-07-15

The APOE ε4 genetic variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and is increasingly being implicated in other neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis did not support differences in orexin-A between AD and controls. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Donanemab: Appropriate use recommendations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2025-03-27

Donanemab (Kisunla®), an IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting N-terminal pyroglutamate-modified forms of amyloid-β, is approved in the United States for treatment of early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

14 IPD-Work studies were assessed and six studies were excluded due to missing outcome data and unavailable data for pooling, resulting in the inclusion of eight studies with 124 909 participants. 5 key findings →

Participants: 909 Evidence: low

The overall PAF for the 14 modifiable risk factors was 59.5% (95% CI = 58.5-60.5). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,949 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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