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 1,651–1,675 of 10,985 studies · free to read (page 67 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.

Resting bold fMRI differentiates dementia with Lewy bodies vs Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2011-04-27

Changes in functional connectivity in DLB indicate patterns of activation that are distinct from those seen in AD and may improve discrimination of DLB from AD and cognitively normal individuals. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 88 Evidence: moderate

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

Contribution of TDP and hippocampal sclerosis to hippocampal volume loss in older-old persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2019-11-22

Both AD and TDP/HS contribute to hippocampal volume loss in older-old persons, with TDP/HS more strongly associated with hippocampal volume than AD in Alzheimer dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 232 Evidence: moderate

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

The effects of donepezil in Alzheimer's disease - results from a multinational trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 1999-05-01

Donepezil has been shown to be well tolerated and to improve cognition and global function in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Metabolic cardiovascular syndrome and risk of dementia in Japanese-American elderly men. The Honolulu-Asia aging study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 2000-10-01

Cardiovascular risk factors often cluster into a metabolic syndrome that may increase the risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Alzheimer's pathology targets distinct memory networks in the ageing brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2019-08-01

Post-mortem studies indicate that in ageing and Alzheimer's disease tau tangles deposit early in the transentorhinal cortex, a region located in the anterior-temporal lobe that is critical for object memory. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: low

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

Region-Specific Association of Subjective Cognitive Decline With Tauopathy Independent of Global β-Amyloid Burden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-12-01

The following 2 regions for tau burden were identified: the entorhinal cortex, which exhibits early signs of tauopathy, and the inferior temporal region, which is more closely associated with AD-related pathologic mechanisms. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 133 Evidence: low

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

The Alzheimer's Disease Centers' Uniform Data Set (UDS): the neuropsychologic test battery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2009-04-01

The neuropsychologic test battery from the Uniform Data Set (UDS) of the Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC) program of the National Institute on Aging consists of brief measures of attention, processing speed, executive function, episodic memory, and language. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Inequalities in dementia incidence between six racial and ethnic groups over 14 years

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2016-02-11

Dementia rates varied over 60% between groups, providing a comprehensive benchmark for the NAPA goal of reducing disparities. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18,778 Evidence: low

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

Comorbidities associated with mortality in 31,461 adults with COVID-19 in the United States: A federated electronic medical record analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2020-09-10

At the beginning of June 2020, there were nearly 7 million reported cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide and over 400,000 deaths in people with COVID-19. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Tooth loss as a risk factor for dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 observational studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. BMC psychiatry 2018-10-20

Future well-designed longitudinal researches examining the direct and indirect relationship between tooth loss and dementia risk are encouraged. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Blood Pressure and Cognitive Decline Over 8 Years in Middle-Aged and Older Black and White Americans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 2019-02-01

Although the association between high blood pressure (BP), particularly in midlife, and late-life dementia is known, less is known about variations by race and sex. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,003 Evidence: moderate

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

Influence of leisure activity on the incidence of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2001-12-01

The data suggest that engagement in leisure activities may reduce the risk of incident dementia, possibly by providing a reserve that delays the onset of clinical manifestations of the disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,772 Evidence: moderate

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

Cognition and anatomy in three variants of primary progressive aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2004-03-01

We performed a comprehensive cognitive, neuroimaging, and genetic study of 31 patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a decline in language functions that remains isolated for at least 2 years. 3 key findings →

Participants: 31 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