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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 3,301–3,325 of 10,985 studies · free to read (page 133 of 440) · 27,380 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; 12,859 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.

Insulin-degrading enzyme regulates the levels of insulin, amyloid β-protein, and the β-amyloid precursor protein intracellular domain in vivo

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2003-03-12

Two substrates of insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE), amyloid beta-protein (Abeta) and insulin, are critically important in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2), respectively.

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

Generational Differences in Age-Specific Dementia Prevalence Rates

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-06-02

In this cross-sectional study examining generational differences in age-specific dementia prevalence across the US, Europe, and England, we found that individuals from more recent birth cohorts had lower proportions of people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 62,437 Evidence: moderate

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

Incidence of dementia after age 90 years and association with APOE genotype, race, and sex in the USA: the LifeAfter90 prospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The lancet. Healthy longevity 2026-08-04

In Fine-Gray models, dementia risk was higher in female than in male participants (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1·89, 95% CI 1·30-2·76) and Black than Asian participants (sHR 1·75, 1·07-2·88), lower in APOE ε2 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 0·39, 0·17-0·88), and not significantly higher in APOE ε4 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 1·51, 0·92-2·47). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 805 Evidence: moderate

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

APOE-ε4 carriership and dementia risk over 10 years among Asian American and White older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2026-07

Despite differences in prevalence of APOE-ε4, its association with dementia risk was similar across Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and non-Latino White participants. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 46,325 Evidence: moderate

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

Cost-Effectiveness of a Digitally Supported Care Management Program for Caregivers of People With Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Value in Health 2025-02-06

CMS was likely cost-effective from the payer but not from a societal perspective, underlining the importance of informal care. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

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

Neuropathologic Profiles and Associated Cognitive Trajectories in Community-Living Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-01-02

Latent neuropathologic profiles were identified using hierarchical clustering, and longitudinal cognitive trajectories associated with each profile were estimated using functional mixed-effects models. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,633 Evidence: high

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

Appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET: a report of the Amyloid Imaging Task Force, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and the Alzheimer's Association

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2013-01-01

Positron emission tomography (PET) of brain amyloid b is a technology that is becoming more available, but its clinical utility in medical practice requires careful definition. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Astrocyte biomarkers GFAP and YKL-40 mediate early Alzheimer's disease progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-09-10

Our results suggest that reactive astrogliosis, as indicated by different fluid biomarkers, influences the pathogenic cascade during the preclinical stage of AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Brain Imaging and Blood Biomarker Abnormalities in Children With Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-08-01

Similar to findings in adult mutation carriers, in the later preclinical and clinical stages of ADAD, mutation-carrying children were distinguished from control individuals by significantly higher plasma Aβ1-42 levels (mean [SD]: carriers, 18.8 [5.1] pg/mL and noncarriers, 13.1 [3.2] pg/mL; P Conclusions and relevance Children at genetic risk for ADAD have functional and structural brain changes and abnormal levels of plasma Aβ1-42. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Association of Sleep and β-Amyloid Pathology Among Older Cognitively Unimpaired Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2021-07-01

Amyloid PET and sleep duration information was acquired on 4425 cognitively unimpaired participants (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [4.7] years; 2628 [59.4%] female; 1509 [34.1%] tested Aβ positive). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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