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 51–75 of 404 studies published 2024 · free to read (page 3 of 17) · 30,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 404 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.

Of 47 participants enrolled (mean age = 73.8 years; 43% female), 1 dropped out before treatment initiation and 6 before completion, including 2 in the nicotinamide and 4 in the placebo arm. 4 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: high

Sleep, 24-Hour Activity Rhythms, and Subsequent Amyloid-β Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2024-08-01

Among community-dwelling adults included in this study, higher fragmentation of the 24-hour activity rhythms was associated with greater subsequent Aβ burden, especially in APOE4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 639 Evidence: moderate

Across the brain, people with Down syndrome had greater concentrations of tau for a given level of amyloid compared with people with autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 137 Evidence: moderate

We sent invitations to 91,433 households; 5542 (6.1%) responded, 2120 completed the Baseline Survey (78.5% online; 21.5% via computer-assisted telephone interview), and 2087 were deemed eligible, yielding a response rate of 2.3%. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 374 Evidence: high

Traumatic Brain Injury and Risk of Incident Comorbidities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-12-12

The study consisted of 20 400 patients (9264 female [45.4%]; 1576 Black [7.7%], 3944 Latinx [19.3%], and 10 480 White [51.4%]), including 5100 patients with mTBI (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years), 5100 patients with msTBI (median [IQR age, 35.0 [25.0-52.0] years), and 10 200 matched patients in the control group (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate

Our findings showed significant associations between hearing and vision impairments and increased risks of all-cause and cause-specific dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 937,908 Evidence: moderate

Annual Wellness Visits and Early Dementia Diagnosis Among Medicare Beneficiaries

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-10-01

These findings indicate that AWV recipients had a timelier first MCI diagnosis than those who did not receive an AWV, but first ADRD diagnosis differed little. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 549,516 Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest that statins might be associated with a lower risk of incident AD among individuals with the APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 4,807 Evidence: early

In this cohort study, high adherence to a flavonoid-rich diet score was associated with a lower risk of dementia, with reductions more pronounced in individuals with a high genetic risk, hypertension, and depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 121,986 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer Dementia Among Individuals With Down Syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA network open 2024-09-03

There were 132 720 unique adults with Down syndrome from 2011 to 2019: 79 578 (53.2%) were male, 17 090 (11.7%) were non-Hispanic Black, 20 777 (15.7%) were Hispanic, 101 120 (68.8%) were non-Hispanic White, and 47 692 (23.3%) had ever had an Alzheimer dementia diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

This study underscores the substantial prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 11,134 Evidence: moderate

Compared with non-users, SGLT-2i, GLP-1RA, TZD and metformin were associated with the reduced risk of dementia in patients with T2D. SGLT-2i, and GLP-1RA may serve as the optimal choice to improve the cognitive prognosis in patients with T2D. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,462,926 Evidence: moderate

Visual Impairment, Eye Conditions, and Diagnoses of Neurodegeneration and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-07-01

In this cohort and MR study of UK Biobank participants, cataracts were associated with increased risk of dementia, especially vascular dementia, and reduced total brain volumes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 304,953 Evidence: moderate

The use of an amyloid clock enabled visualization and analysis of biomarker changes as a function of estimated years from symptom onset in sporadic AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate

Blood-Based Biomarkers and Risk of Onset of Mild Cognitive Impairment Over the Short and Long Term

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2024-12-26

This study examined whether levels of blood biomarkers of amyloid (Aβ 42 /Aβ 40 ratio), tau (p-tau 181 ), neurodegeneration (NfL), and glial activation and neuroinflammation (glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], YKL40, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 [sTREM2]) collected when participants were cognitively normal are associated with the time to onset of MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 271 Evidence: moderate

There were no statistical differences between the placebo or solanezumab groups in CDR-G, CDR-SB, specific CDR boxes or CDR composite scores over the course of the trial. 3 key findings →

Participants: 583 Evidence: high

We conducted the largest metabolome investigation of dementia to date, for the first time revealed the metabolite importance ranking, and highlighted the contribution of plasma metabolites for dementia prediction. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 274,160 Evidence: moderate

Oral Health as a Risk Factor for Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2024-01-01

In patients with Alzheimer's disease pathophysiological changes of the brain that initiate the onset of Alzheimer's disease include accumulation of amyloid-β plaques and phosphorylation of tau-tangles. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,962 Evidence: high

↑ 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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