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 3,726–3,750 of 10,985 studies · free to read (page 150 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.

The escalating global burden of serious health-related suffering: projections to 2060 by world regions, age groups, and health conditions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. The Lancet. Global health 2019-05-22

By 2060, an estimated 48 million people (47% of all deaths globally) will die with serious health-related suffering, which represents an 87% increase from 26 million people in 2016. 83% of these deaths will occur in low-income and middle-income countries. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

National estimates of the quantity and cost of informal caregiving for the elderly with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of general internal medicine 2001-11-01

After adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, and potential caregiving network, those with normal cognition received an average of 4.6 hours per week of informal care. 4 key findings →

Participants: 7,443 Evidence: low

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

ER stress and UPR in Alzheimer's disease: mechanisms, pathogenesis, treatments

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Cell death & disease 2022-08-15

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating neurodegenerative disorder characterized by gradual loss of memory and cognitive function, which constitutes a heavy burden on the healthcare system globally. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Gradual Disturbances of the Amplitude of Low-Frequency Fluctuations (ALFF) and Fractional ALFF in Alzheimer Spectrum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Frontiers in neuroscience 2018-12-20

In the machine learning verification, the identification accuracy of SCD, aMCI, d-AD from NC was higher when fused ALFF and fALFF features (76.44, 81.94, and 91.83%, respectively) than only using ALFF or fALFF features. 5 key findings →

Participants: 44 Evidence: low

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

Global mortality from dementia: Application of a new method and results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2021-07-27

Mortality due to dementia represents a substantial global burden, and is expected to continue to grow into the future as an older, aging population expands globally. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Mild cognitive impairment: the Manchester consensus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Age and ageing 2021-01-01

Given considerable variation in diagnostic and therapeutic practice, there is a need for national guidance on the use of neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, cognitive testing, follow-up and diagnostic terminology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution, APOE-ε4 status, and cognitive decline in a cohort of older adults in northern Manhattan

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Environment international 2020-01-08

These results add to the body of evidence on the adverse impact of ambient air pollution on cognitive aging and brain health and provide new insights into the genetic and behavioral factors that may impact individual susceptibility. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,821 Evidence: low

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

Can physicians conceive of performing euthanasia in case of psychiatric disease, dementia or being tired of living?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of medical ethics 2015-02-18

This study shows that a minority of Dutch physicians find it conceivable that they would grant a request for EAS from a patient with psychiatric disease, dementia or a patient who is tired of living. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,456 Evidence: low

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

Chronic disease prevalence and care among the elderly in urban and rural Beijing, China - a 10/66 Dementia Research Group cross-sectional survey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. BMC public health 2009-10-21

Apparent better health in Daxing might be explained by under-diagnosis, under-reporting or selective mortality. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,002 Evidence: low

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

Simvastatin strongly reduces levels of Alzheimer's disease beta -amyloid peptides Abeta 42 and Abeta 40 in vitro and in vivo

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2001-04-10

Recent epidemiological studies show a strong reduction in the incidence of Alzheimer's disease in patients treated with cholesterol-lowering statins. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Promoting the clearance of neurotoxic proteins in neurodegenerative disorders of ageing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Nature reviews. Drug discovery 2018-08-17

Neurodegenerative disorders of ageing (NDAs) such as Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, frontotemporal dementia, Huntington disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis represent a major socio-economic challenge in view of their high prevalence yet poor treatment. 5 key findings →

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