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 4,401–4,425 of 10,985 studies · free to read (page 177 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.

Automated quantification of 18F-flutemetamol PET activity for categorizing scans as negative or positive for brain amyloid: concordance with visual image reads

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2014-08-21

The derived threshold was used to categorize the 172 scans in the test cohort as negative or positive, and results were compared with categorization using visual assessment. 4 key findings →

Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

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

Predicting MCI outcome with clinically available MRI and CSF biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2011-10-12

Incorporating quantitative assessment of learning ability along with vMRI or CSF biomarkers in the clinical workup of MCI can provide critical information on risk of imminent conversion to AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

FLAIR and diffusion MRI signals are independent predictors of white matter hyperintensities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology 2012-06-14

Stepwise decreases in WM integrity as measured by both DTI and FLAIR were independently associated with stepwise increases in WMH risk, emphasizing that these modalities may provide complementary information for understanding the time course of aging-associated WM degeneration. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Morphometric and histologic substrates of cingulate integrity in elders with exceptional memory capacity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 2015-01-01

This human study is based on an established cohort of "SuperAgers," 80+-year-old individuals with episodic memory function at a level equal to, or better than, individuals 20-30 years younger. 4 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate

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

Progressive aphasia secondary to Alzheimer disease vs FTLD pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-01

A temporoparietal pattern of atrophy on MRI in patients with progressive fluent aphasia and relatively preserved processing speed is suggestive of underlying Alzheimer disease pathology rather than frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-only immunoreactive changes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 216 Evidence: low

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

Amyloid imaging as a biomarker for cerebral β-amyloidosis and risk prediction for Alzheimer dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2011-12-01

Since the introduction of amyloid imaging nearly 10 years ago, this technique has gained widespread use and acceptance. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Medial temporal lobe atrophy and white matter hyperintensities are associated with mild cognitive deficits in non-disabled elderly people: the LADIS study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2005-11-01

The presence of either severe WMH or MTA was associated with a modest but non-significant increase in frequency of mild cognitive deficits (severe WMH: odds ratio (OR) = 1.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0 to 3.7); MTA present: OR = 1.5 (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.8)). 2 key findings →

Participants: 639 Evidence: low

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

Plasma long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and atrophy of the medial temporal lobe

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2012-08-01

The long-chain ω-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are potential candidates for interventions to delay Alzheimer disease (AD), but evidence from clinical studies is mixed. 1 key finding →

Participants: 281 Evidence: low

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

Predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of advanced nursing 2011-07-28

This article is a report on a study of the multidimensional predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia using nationally representative data. 1 key finding →

Participants: 302 Evidence: low

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

Changes in appetite, food preference, and eating habits in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2002-10-01

Change in eating behaviour was significantly more common in both of the frontotemporal dementia groups than in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

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

Clinical, imaging, and pathological heterogeneity of the Alzheimer's disease syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2013-01-09

For example, focal temporal lobe dysfunction is associated with a pure amnestic syndrome, very slow decline, with atrophy and neurofibrillary tangles limited largely to the medial temporal region including the entorhinal cortex. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The prognosis of dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2017-03-22

Dementia with Lewy bodies is the second most common form of neurodegenerative dementia, yet scarce evidence is available about its prognosis and natural history, which are crucial to inform clinical practice and research. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregiver Health (REACH): project design and baseline characteristics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2003-09-01

The Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Cargiver Health (REACH) project was designed to test promising interventions for enhancing family caregiving for persons with dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Making decisions for people with dementia who lack capacity: qualitative study of family carers in UK

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2010-08-18

The following strategies helped with implementation of decisions: introducing change slowly; organising legal changes for the carer as well as the patient; involving a professional to persuade the patient to accept services; and emphasising that services optimised, not impeded, independence. 1 key finding →

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