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 151–175 of 404 studies published 2024 · free to read (page 7 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.

Our results reveal a spatial association between the epileptogenic focus and tau deposition, amyloid deposition, and neurodegeneration in early clinical stages of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Midlife NAFLD shows associations with AD and accumulating vascular pathology, revealing potential pathways linking liver function to dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,706 Evidence: low

Participants age 60-85 years deemed cognitively unimpaired were disclosed an elevated or not elevated brain amyloid result by a certified clinician. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,686 Evidence: high

Study findings will reveal the feasibility of delivering an 8-week multidomain health education intervention for primary prevention of dementia in midlife and will provide preliminary evidence of mechanisms of change. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high

The results indicate that incorporating MI can positively influence cognitive status, emotional status, and the quality of life in older adults diagnosed with early-stage dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 55 Evidence: high

The accessibility of the retina with the use of non-invasive and relatively low-cost ophthalmic imaging techniques and analytics provides a unique opportunity to improve the detection, diagnosis and monitoring of systemic diseases. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

It remains unknown whether the associations between protective lifestyles and sporadic dementia risk reported in observational studies also affect age at symptom onset (AAO) in autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) with predominant genetic influences. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 103 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is defined by β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tau, but Lewy bodies (LBs; 𝛼-synuclein aggregates) are a common co-pathology for which effective biomarkers are needed. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Individuals with DS were more likely to have microbleeds than controls (20% vs 8.9%, p 60 years) and AD clinical stage (12.42% asymptomatic, 27.9% prodromal, 35.09% dementia) were more common in APOE ε4 carriers (26% vs 18.3% noncarriers, p = 0.008), but not associated with vascular risk factors ( p > 0.05). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 276 Evidence: low

Portable, low-field magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Nature communications 2024-12-02

Portable, low-field magnetic resonance imaging (LF-MRI) of the brain may facilitate point-of-care assessment of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in settings where conventional MRI cannot. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Down syndrome (DS) is the most common condition with intellectual disability and is caused by trisomy of Homo sapiens chromosome 21 (HSA21). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Although heterogeneity of FAP+ Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts (CAF) has been described in breast cancer, their plasticity and spatial distribution remain poorly understood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our study provides evidence that plasma p-tau217 has strong discriminative accuracy for AD among patients with early-onset and/or atypical dementia assessed in specialized settings. 4 key findings →

Participants: 81 Evidence: low

Our results demonstrate that unsupervised digital memory assessments might be used for diagnosis and prognosis in Alzheimer's disease, potentially in combination with plasma biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

While macrophage heterogeneity during metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) has been described, the fate of these macrophages during MASH regression is poorly understood. 4 key findings →

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 30,180 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