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 176–200 of 375 studies published 2023 · free to read (page 8 of 15) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 375 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.

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

As the leading cause of dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major burden on affected individuals, their families and caregivers, and healthcare systems. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Loss-of-function variants of TREM2 are associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD), suggesting that activation of this innate immune receptor may be a useful therapeutic strategy. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The average detection rates for mild cognitive impairment is 0.08 (interquartile range=0.00-0.02) for both clinicians and practices, suggesting that only about 8% of expected cases were diagnosed on average. 3 key findings →

Participants: 25 Evidence: low

Introduction to Special Issue: Translational Research on Pain and Pain Management in Later Life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2023-12-01

Prevalence studies indicate that as many as 50% of older adults experience bothersome pain on a regular basis (Dahlhamer et al., 2018; Galicia-Castillo & Weiner, 2023; Larsson et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2020; Rikard et al., 2023). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,041 Evidence: high

Increasing neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased risk of EHR-documented dementia diagnosis or dementia-related death (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.76, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-1.84) after adjusting for age and sex. 4 key findings →

Participants: 253,421 Evidence: low

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a promising biomarker for risk stratification and disease monitoring of dementia, but its utility in the preclinical disease stage remains uncertain. 4 key findings →

Participants: 975 Evidence: low

Selected CSF biomarkers at presentation were associated with etiologic diagnoses and treatment responsiveness in patients with heterogeneous causes of RPD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Trem2 expression in microglia is required to maintain normal neuronal bioenergetics during development

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Immunity 2023-12-29

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (Trem2) is a myeloid cell-specific gene expressed in brain microglia, with variants that are associated with neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Inequities in Filled Overactive Bladder Medication Prescriptions in the US

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2023-05-24

An estimated 2 971 449 individuals (mean age, 66.4 years; 95% CI, 64.8-68.2 years) filled prescriptions for OAB medications in 2019; 2 185 214 (73.5%; 95% CI, 62.6%-84.5%) identified as female, 2 326 901 (78.3%; 95% CI, 66.3%-90.3%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White, 260 685 (8.8%; 95% CI, 5.0%-12.5%) identified as non-Hispanic Black, 167 210 (5.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-8.2%) identified as Hispanic, 158 507 (5.3%; 95% CI, 2.3%-8.4%) identified as non-Hispanic other race, and 58 147 (2.0%; 95% CI, 0.3%-3.6%) identified as non-Hispanic Asian. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 449 Evidence: low

Plasma GFAP effectively distinguished AD dementia from multiple neurodegenerative diseases, gradually increased across the AD continuum, predicted the individual risk of AD progression, and strongly correlated with AD CSF/neuroimaging biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Participants: 818 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 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    Where this research is being discussed: events