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 1,376–1,400 of 10,985 studies · free to read (page 56 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.

Confounder adjustment in observational studies investigating multiple risk factors: a methodological study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. BMC Medicine 2025-03-04

A total of 162 studies were included, with 88 (54.3%) exploring potential risk factors and 74 (45.7%) examining specific risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 162 Evidence: moderate

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

Five-Year Changes in 24-Hour Sleep-Wake Activity and Dementia Risk in Oldest Old Women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2025-03-19

Of 733 participants (mean age 82.5 ± 2.9 years), 164 (22.4%) developed MCI and 93 (12.7%) developed dementia by the follow-up visit. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 321 Evidence: moderate

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

MarkVCID2 Consortium for Clinical Validation of Biomarkers of Cerebral Small Vessel Disease: Validation Framework and Baseline Characteristics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Annals of Neurology 2025-09-22

MarkVCID2 enrolled 1883 individuals age 73.4 ± 7.5 years, 65.0% female, 24.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% non-Hispanic Black. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,883 Evidence: moderate

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

Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The Lancet Neurology 2013-07-15

An international working group from the Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration completed a structured process to develop definitions and imaging standards for markers and consequences of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Inflammatory Biomarkers Predict Domain-Specific Cognitive Decline in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2017-06-01

In particular, systemic inflammation, vascular inflammation, and altered endothelial function may play roles in domain-specific cognitive decline of nondemented individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,159 Evidence: low

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

Clinical Meaningfulness of Donanemab in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease: Data From the Randomized Phase 3 TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology: Clinical Practice 2026-05-13

Donanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the insoluble form of β-amyloid found in plaques, significantly slows cognitive and functional decline of AD in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild AD-related dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Evidence: moderate

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

Blood-based biomarkers for detecting Alzheimer's disease pathology in cognitively impaired individuals within specialized care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2025-11-05

Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p-tau217, %p-tau217, p-tau181, p-tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate

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

Diagnostic Performance of the α-Synuclein Seed Amplification Assay for Dementia With Lewy Bodies: A Comparison Across 4 Laboratories

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2026-01-28

This study highlights challenges for the reproducibility of α-syn SAA results across different protocols applied by different laboratories. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 30 Evidence: early

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

Two-step detection of Lewy body pathology via smell-function testing and CSF α-synuclein seed amplification

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-08-05

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) α-synuclein (α-syn) seed amplification assays (SAAs) can detect Lewy body pathology (LBP) with high accuracy but are invasive and costly. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,567 Evidence: early

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

Impact of learning APOE genotype on cognitively unimpaired adults: a pre-screening cohort study of the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative Generation Study 1

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet Healthy Longevity 2025-11-27

The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the best established genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease in later life, with the ε4 allele conferring higher risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 9,496 Evidence: moderate

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