alzhub.org
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.

Research

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 301–325 of 932 studies published 2026 · free to read (page 13 of 38) · 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Differences in amyloid PET positivity based on ethnoracial group and social determinants of health: The new IDEAS study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-05-01

Among 5757 participants (21.7% Black, 20.3% Latinx, 58.1% AORE), we found lower odds of amyloid positivity in Black (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.83) and Latinx (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.91) compared to AORE. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,757 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Plasma p‐tau217 predicts PET‐based pathological staging for precision Alzheimer disease assessment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-02-01

Plasma p-tau217-based biomarkers showed excellent detecting performance for early amyloid (Thal I-II; area under the curve values > 0.96) and intermediate tau (Braak III-IV; area under the curve values > 0.92). 5 key findings →

Participants: 237 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Copathologies of Limbic-Predominant Age-Related TDP-43 Encephalopathy and Alzheimer Disease: [ 18 F]FDG PET Statistical Mapping and Quantitative MRI Volumetry

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2026-01-22

Of the 944 clinical cases, 13.0% were characterized as probable LATE (2.4% pure LATE and 10.6% LATE+AD) and 23.7% were characterized as probable AD without LATE. 5 key findings →

Participants: 944 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Digital cognitive phenotyping enhances risk stratification in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-09-01

Four cognitive phenotypes emerged. One phenotype (18% of Aβ+ participants) showed the steepest cognitive decline, highest progression on the CDR, greater baseline medial temporal tau, and fastest neocortical tau accumulation over 4.6 years (hazard ratio [HR] for decline ≈ 2.9). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Resource-stratified machine learning framework for cognitive status classification and mild cognitive impairment to dementia progression prediction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s Research & Therapy 2026-03-07

The Level 3 model achieved high classification performance (AUC: 93.98%), and the Level 1 model achieved comparable performance (AUC: 91.53%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 31,081 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Discriminative Plasma Lipidomic Signatures of Dementia with Lewy Bodies and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Targeted Mass Spectrometry and Machine Learning Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2026-03-01

Significant alterations were observed in 7 lipid classes and 65 specific lipid species in DLB compared to AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Concordance of Biological and Clinical Staging of Alzheimer Disease Pathology in Down Syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2026-01-12

This cross-sectional study examines data for participants in the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium–Down Syndrome study to gauge the concordance of clinical and biological Alzheimer disease staging. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Mild cognitive impairment‐to‐Alzheimer's dementia progression risk: the contribution of the Interceptor project

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-04-01

Dementia developed in 104 individuals (29.6%), including 85 (22.4%) who met core clinical criteria for probable and possible Alzheimer's disease dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 398 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Polygenic risk for white matter hyperintensities is associated with early cerebrovascular events partly through hemodynamic measures in cognitively unimpaired middle-aged and older adults with low cardiovascular risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Frontiers in Neurology 2026-01-05

They are often found in middle-aged individuals and are associated with a greater risk of stroke and vascular dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,072 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Assessing the Impact of Sociodemographic Factors on Artificial Intelligence Models in Predicting Dementia: Retrospective Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. JMIR Medical Informatics 2026-01-07

Across both cohorts, individuals with lower SES generally exhibited higher BERs (worse performance) than high SES groups, confirming the presence of bias. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,041 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neighborhood Disadvantage and Dementia Risk Among Older Patients With Kidney Failure: Differences by Race/Ethnicity and Urbanicity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Kidney Medicine 2026-07-20

Older patients with kidney failure residing in high-disadvantage neighborhoods, particularly Black patients and those in suburban, rural, or small-town areas, had a higher risk of ADRD compared with those in low-disadvantage neighborhoods. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Sex Differences in Alzheimer Disease Imaging Biomarkers in a Diverse, Community-Based Cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) 2026-02-06

Compared with men, women had greater amyloid burden (B = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.07; P < .001), Braak stages III and IV (B = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.08; P = .003) and Braak stages V and VI (B = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.12; P < .001) tau burden, and AD signature thickness (B = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P < .001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 501 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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