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 4,776–4,800 of 10,985 studies · free to read (page 192 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.

Quantitative analysis and clinico-pathological correlations of different dipeptide repeat protein pathologies in C9ORF72 mutation carriers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2015-09-15

Hexanucleotide repeat expansion in C9ORF72 is the most common genetic cause of frontotemporal dementia and motor neuron disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

C9orf72 poly(GR) aggregation induces TDP-43 proteinopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2020-09-01

TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) inclusions are a pathological hallmark of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), including cases caused by G 4 C 2 repeat expansions in the C9orf72 gene (c9FTD/ALS). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Alzheimer disease and cognitive reserve: variation of education effect with carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound B uptake

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2008-11-01

Uptake of carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound B ([(11)C]PiB) was measured for participants assessed between August 15, 2003, and January 8, 2008, at the Washington University Alzheimer's Disease Research Center and diagnosed either as nondemented (n = 161) or with dementia of the Alzheimer type (n = 37). 1 key finding →

Participants: 161 Evidence: low

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

APOE genotype regulates pathology and disease progression in synucleinopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Science translational medicine 2020-02-01

Apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) ε4 genotype is associated with increased risk of dementia in Parkinson's disease (PD), but the mechanism is not clear, because patients often have a mixture of α-synuclein (αSyn), amyloid-β (Aβ), and tau pathologies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Physiological and functional consequences of caregiving for relatives with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2014-02-10

There is accumulating evidence that chronic dementia caregiver stress increases their vulnerability to disease and diminishes their ability to provide optimal care. 2 key findings →

Participants: 4,145 Evidence: low

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

Neuropathological Diagnoses of Demented Hispanic, Black, and Non-Hispanic White Decedents Seen at an Alzheimer's Disease Center

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2019-01-01

Our nation is becoming increasingly diverse; however, few autopsy studies examine multiple ethnoracial groups, especially Hispanics. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Expected and diagnosed rates of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in the U.S. Medicare population: observational analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2023-07-22

These results highlight the need to increase the overall detection rates of MCI and of dementia particularly in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Walking stabilizes cognitive functioning in Alzheimer's disease (AD) across one year

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics 2012-09-05

AD is a public health epidemic, which seriously impacts cognition, mood and daily activities; however, one type of activity, exercise, has been shown to alter these states. 3 key findings →

Participants: 104 Evidence: low

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

Racial/ethnic differences in dementia risk among older type 2 diabetic patients: the diabetes and aging study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Diabetes care 2013-11-22

Among type 2 diabetic patients followed for 10 years, African Americans and Native Americans had a 40-60% greater risk of dementia compared with Asians, and risk was intermediate for non-Hispanic whites and Latinos. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Association of Central Arterial Stiffness and Pressure Pulsatility with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study-Neurocognitive Study (ARIC-NCS)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

Higher arterial stiffness and pulsatility were associated with MCI and dementia in white participants. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Subjective cognitive decline higher among sexual and gender minorities in the United States, 2015-2018

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2021-07-28

Higher prevalence of SCD in SGM adults highlights the importance of ensuring inclusive screenings, interventions, care services, and resources for SGM adults. 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