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 376–400 of 842 studies (page 16 of 34) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 842 studies tagged classification — clear

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.

In the complex realm of cognitive disorders, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are the two most prevalent dementia types, presenting entangled symptoms yet requiring distinct treatment approaches. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Neurological disorders are among the leading causes of both physical and cognitive disabilities worldwide, affecting approximately 15% of the global population. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Actigraphy accurately identifies different dementia etiologies and could serve as a supplement to diagnostic investigations in patients with suspected AD for differential diagnostic purposes. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Machine learning (ML) on structural MRI data shows high potential for classifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression, but the specific contribution of brain regions, demographics, and proteinopathy remains unclear. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 568 Evidence: moderate

The new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) acknowledges the interest given to biomarkers to improve the specificity in subjects with dementia and to facilitate an early diagnosis of the pathophysiological process of AD in the prodromal or pre-dementia stage. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Lewy body (LB) disorders, including Parkinson disease (PD), Parkinson disease dementia (PDD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), are the second most common type of neurodegenerative dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The Study of Knowledge and Reactions to Amyloid Testing, a substudy of an AD prevention trial, involved 2 semistructured telephone interviews with 80 participants recruited from 9 study sites: 50 received elevated and 30 received not elevated amyloid PET scan results. 5 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: low

Second-generation anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies are emerging as a viable therapeutic option for individuals with prodromal and mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Magnetoencephalographic evaluation of resting-state functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. NeuroImage 2006-07-11

Statistical interdependencies between magnetoencephalographic signals recorded over different brain regions may reflect the functional connectivity of the resting-state networks. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

White matter hyperintensity volume predicts 1-year cognitive decline in a relatively healthy convenience sample that was similar to clinical trial samples, and therefore should be considered as a covariate of interest at baseline and longitudinally in future AD treatment trials. 3 key findings →

Participants: 804 Evidence: low

Magnetic resonance imaging of iron deposition in neurological disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI 2006-02-01

Deposition of iron in the brain is proposed to play a role in the pathophysiology of the normal aging process and neurodegenerative diseases. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

(18)F-AZD4694 showed reversible binding kinetics similar to (11)C-PiB, reaching an apparent steady state at 50 min after injection. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increased cerebral metabolism after 1 year of deep brain stimulation in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2012-09-01

Increased connectivity after 1 year of DBS is observed, which is in contrast to the decreased connectivity observed over the course of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: low

Dementia is the clinical syndrome characterized by progressive loss of cognitive and emotional abilities to a degree severe enough to interfere with daily functioning. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Determination of sensitive and specific markers of very early AD progression is intended to aid researchers and clinicians to develop new treatments and monitor their effectiveness, as well as to lessen the time and cost of clinical trials. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

9 of the 838 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 9. The same 9 appear here every time.

↑ 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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