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 76–92 of 92 studies matching “driving” · free to read (page 4 of 4) · 29,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 92 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.

EMCIs and LMCIs, especially LMCIs, exhibited poorer performance in almost all global and multidimensional cognitive tests. 5 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

Mixed dementia (MD), characterized by overlapping features of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD), represents the most prevalent form of late-life cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion mutation is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia, but its cell type-specific effects on energy metabolism and immune pathways remain poorly understood. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

GRc exerted neuroprotective effects in VaD by targeting Stat3 and driving its dual-phosphorylation. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mitochondrial Imbalance in Down Syndrome: A Driver of Accelerated Brain Aging?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Aging and disease 2025-04-06

Down syndrome (DS), caused by trisomy of chromosome 21 (HSA21), is a complex condition associated with neurodevelopmental impairments and accelerated brain aging, often culminating in early-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

One of the key classical pathological features of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the progressive accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ42) peptides and their coalescence into highly insoluble senile plaque cores. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Accessibility to food stores offering nutritious and affordable options is critical to ensure urban residents lead healthy lives. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Early-phase tau mutant organoids showed elevated tau, hyperdynamic microtubules, and neuronal hyperexcitability, partially reversible by tau reduction. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These findings suggest that sexual differentiation in early life has modest effects on adult development of AD in females, a relationship that appeared stronger in the context of APOE4 . 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The onset and sustenance of Alzheimers and Parkinsons is solely dependent on the driving power of the immune cytokine interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), arising from neuronal distress and release of sAPPα, which activates microglia for synthesis and release of IL-1β driving synthesis of βAPP, Aβ plaques and synthesis and activation of MAPKp38 for phosphorylation of tau for neurofibrillary tangle formation in Alzheimers and for a-synuclein for formation of Lewy bodies in Parkinsons. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Beyond their role in energy production, mitochondria also interact with other organelles through forming membrane contacts that serve as central hubs of cellular metabolism and signaling. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We evaluated known AD-associated loci (Bellenguez et al. 2022) and 27 loci reached nominal significance (p < 0.05) in at least one cognitive domain. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Long-read sequencing reveals hidden structural complexity within Alzheimers disease-associated GWAS loci

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-17

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) typically represent Alzheimers disease (AD) risk loci by a single lead SNP, although the lead SNP may capture only part of the genetic variation at a locus. 3 key findings →

Participants: 493 Evidence: low

A longitudinal study of age-related traits and cognitive function: The Collaborative Amish Aging and Memory Project (CAAMP)

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-20

Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSINTRODUCTIONC_ST_ABSThe Collaborative Amish Aging and Memory Project (CAAMP) is an ongoing longitudinal study spanning multiple sites, focused on cognitive function and age-related traits in Midwestern Amish (Ohio and Indiana) communities. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 3,978 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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 (3.5% 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