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 3,676–3,700 of 10,985 studies · free to read (page 148 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.

Chronic kidney disease is associated with white matter hyperintensity volume: the Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Stroke 2007-10-25

The association between moderate-severe chronic kidney disease and white matter hyperintensity volume highlights the growing importance of kidney disease as a possible determinant of cerebrovascular disease and/or as a marker of microangiopathy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 615 Evidence: moderate

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

Recommendations of the 5th Canadian Consensus Conference on the diagnosis and treatment of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2020-07-29

Since 1989, four Canadian Consensus Conferences on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) have provided evidence-based dementia guidelines for Canadian clinicians and researchers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Preeclampsia and eclampsia: the conceptual evolution of a syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2022-02-01

We review the epidemiologic data that led to the recommendation to use diastolic hypertension and proteinuria as diagnostic criteria, as their combined presence was associated with an increased risk of fetal death and the birth of small-for-gestational-age neonates. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Economic hardship and biological weathering: The epigenetics of aging in a U.S. sample of black women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Social science & medicine (1982) 2015-12-10

These findings support the view that chronic financial pressures associated with low income exert a weathering effect that results in premature aging. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Diagnosis and treatment of dementia: 1. Risk assessment and primary prevention of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 2008-02-01

Of 3424 articles on potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia, 1719 met our inclusion criteria; 60 were deemed to be of good or fair quality. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Association Between Life's Simple 7 and Noncardiovascular Disease: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of the American Heart Association 2016-10-20

The American Heart Association's LS7 score identified individuals who were vulnerable to multiple chronic nonvascular conditions. 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,506 Evidence: low

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

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - frontotemporal spectrum disorder (ALS-FTSD): Revised diagnostic criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration 2017-01-05

This article presents the revised consensus criteria for the diagnosis of frontotemporal dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) based on an international research workshop on frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and ALS held in London, Canada in June 2015. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test better suited than the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) detection among people aged over 60? Meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Psychiatria polska 2016-10-01

MoCA test better meets the criteria for screening tests for the detection of MCI among patients over 60 years of age than MMSE. 2 key findings →

Participants: 9,350 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