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.

Find studies

Showing 551–575 of 2,931 studies published 2025 · free to read (page 23 of 118) · 30,980 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.

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.

Genome-wide association study of neuropathological features in Lewy body disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Brain 2025-03-14

APOE ε4) was associated with a greater severity of each of Braak NFT stage [odds ratio (OR) = 3.07, P = 2.34 × 10-32], Thal amyloid phase (OR = 3.57, P = 3.28 × 10-29) and LBD subtype (OR = 1.78, P = 9.85 × 10-9), with similar findings observed in the independent replication series (Braak NFT stage, OR = 2.30, P = 2.70 × 10-11; Thal amyloid phase, OR = 3.17, P = 6.39 × 10-18; LBD subtype, OR = 2.68, P = 3.85 × 10-10). 5 key findings →

Participants: 980 Evidence: low

Hospice Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Parkinson Disease and Dementia With Lewy Bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-03-04

Of 11 327 324 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in hospice between 2010 and 2020 who met eligibility criteria (mean [SD] age, 85.2 [7.5] years; 781 763 [63.0%] female), there were 958 182 (8.4%) with a primary diagnosis of AD, 232 864 (2.1%) with PD, and 49 340 (0.4%) with DLB. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

A total of 798 patients (154 with probable DLB and 644 with AD) were included, and the mean age was 81.4 years (SD 6.33). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 798 Evidence: moderate

• Low ALPS index was significantly associated with high risk of MCI, and the risk of MCI decreased linearly with a higher ALPS index • High ALPS index was dose-dependently associated with a decreased progression from MCI to AD • High ALPS index may delay the MCI onset approximately 3.8 years among CN participants and delay MCI progression to AD by approximately 3.5 years in MCI group • Aβ in choroid plexus, tau in part of the cortex and executive function were partially mediate ALPS-AD association We aimed to explore the association between ALPS index and both risks of MCI from cognitively normal (CN) and incident AD progressed from MCI, as well as potential mediating factors. 1 key finding →

Participants: 519 Evidence: moderate

In linear mixed models, vascular endothelial growth factor was significantly associated with incident DWI-positive lesions over 1 year. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate

Significant hazard ratios (HRs) for dementia incidence were found using the MMSE cutoff between 23 and 24 point (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.13-3.27) and the J-Cog cutoff between 43 and 44 points (HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.50-3.93). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

) had a 14% increase in the rate of dementia incidence (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23; P <.001), and each standard deviation (SD) decrease in eBMD was associated with a 49% increase in dementia risk (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.19-1.86; P <.001). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 131,030 Evidence: moderate

Both the Keto and ADF groups demonstrated significant weight loss, but cognitive performance improved most notably in the ADF group, in association with reduced inflammation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 96 Evidence: high

Delirium screening was performed exclusively in patients aged ≥75 years, accounting for 7.3% of all surgical patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 23,100 Evidence: low

Of the patients, 82.2% were receiving at least one dizziness-associated medication and 71.2% at least one hypotension-associated medication. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 210 Evidence: moderate

In contrast, patients with LB pathology alone, in the absence of AD biomarker positivity, had less overall cognitive impairment but more focal dysexecutive and visuospatial deficits. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 85 Evidence: moderate

We included 17098 records, 4139 from deceased individuals (mean age 81) and 12959 from living individuals (mean age 79). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 17,098 Evidence: moderate

Among 40,074 inpatient encounters (median age 72 years [IQR 62-82], 46.9% male, 22.7% Black, 4.6% Hispanic), the most common serious illness was heart failure (66.0%), followed by COPD (39.3%), kidney failure (12.4%), cancer (12.3%), and dementia (11.6%). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The final model, which included age, systolic blood pressure >140, atrial fibrillation, and tobacco use, achieved an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.90) in the development cohort (N=143, 62.4±12.6 years, 44% female, 36% non-white race) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) in the validation cohort (N=127, 65.2±16.8 years, 51% female, 34% non-white race), with similar results using WMH measurements derived from cMRI (N=120, p=0.98, AUC=0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.93). 5 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: moderate

Cohort 1 included 446 individuals (mean age (SD) 65.2 years (8.9); 203 women), Cohort 2 included 164 individuals (mean age (SD) 49.9 years (12.6); 88 women). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 446 Evidence: moderate

This systematic review aims to elucidate the neuropathological basis of the HIDA and psychosis domains, exploring whether distinct proteinopathies and neural circuit dysfunctions are associated with these symptoms. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), and amyloid beta ratio (Aβ42/40) may have diagnostic and prognostic value in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,298 Evidence: moderate

This study was approved by the institutional review board in April 2022 and funded in May 2022. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

We investigated whether specific SLEs are associated with AD pathology and neurodegeneration and how these associations differ by gender and education. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

In vitro and animal studies have suggested that inoculation with herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) can lead to amyloid deposits, hyperphosphorylation of tau, and/or neuronal loss. 4 key findings →

Participants: 58 Evidence: low

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events