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 301–325 of 329 studies published 2013 · free to read (page 13 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.

It is well known that a specific set of genetic and non-genetic risk factors contributes to the onset of Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prior work on the link between blood-based biomarkers and cognitive status has largely been based on dichotomous classifications rather than detailed neuropsychological functioning. 1 key finding →

Participants: 395 Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) brain is characterized by extracellular plaques of amyloid β (Aβ) peptide with reactive microglia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The RCAN1 gene encodes three different protein isoforms: RCAN1-4, RCAN1-1L, and RCAN1-1S. RCAN1-1L is the RCAN1 isoform predominantly expressed in human brains. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We propose that sleep disruption is a lever arm that influences how cognition emerges in development and then declines in response to Alzheimer disease in people with Down syndrome. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

DNAX-activating protein of 12 kD (DAP12) is an immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motif (ITAM)-containing adaptor protein found in myeloid cells and natural killer cells, and it couples to various receptors that mediate either cellular activation or inhibition. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) polymorphism has been appreciated as a valuable predictor of Alzheimer disease (AD), and the associated ε4 allele has been recognized as an indicator of susceptibility to this disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

There is evidence of geographical variation in dementia[1], not all of which can be ascribed to genetic factors[2]. 1 key finding →

Participants: 568 Evidence: low

Fluid biomarkers improve the diagnostic accuracy in dementia and provide an objective measure potentially useful as a therapeutic response in clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons play an important role in cognitive functions such as learning and memory, and they are affected in several neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer disease and Down syndrome. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Prion diseases are characterized by accumulation of misfolded protein, gliosis, synaptic dysfunction, and ultimately neuronal loss. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Proteomics has a wide range of applications, including determination of differences in the proteome in terms of expression and post-translational protein modifications. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

One of the key classical pathological features of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the progressive accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ42) peptides and their coalescence into highly insoluble senile plaque cores. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Disease-onset time (DOT) and disease trajectory concepts were applied to derive an Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression population model using the clinical dementia rating scale-sum of boxes (CDR-SOB) from the AD neuroimaging initiative (ADNI) database. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Depression is a multicausal disorder and has been associated with the risk to develop cancer, dementia, diabetes, epilepsy and stroke. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The goals of this study were to compare the early diagnostic utility of Alzheimer disease biomarkers in the CSF with those in brain MRI in conditions found in our clinical practice, and to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of both techniques used together. 4 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Unexpected Suicidality in an Older Individual in an Emergency Department

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2013-06-01

On supplementary questioning, he revealed multiple recent social stressors, including the 1-year anniversary of his partner's death and an impending eviction from his home with the loss of his beloved garden. 3 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