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 451–475 of 842 studies (page 19 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.

< 0.001). Shape features demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy for conversion, with areas under the curve of 0.891 at baseline and 0.898 at 2 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 180 Evidence: moderate

Disruptions in GABAergic activity and alterations in gamma oscillations are key pathological features of AD associated with amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 127 Evidence: moderate

Aggregated TDP-43 is a hallmark of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE), and a common co-pathology in other neurodegenerative diseases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The FCAAS-4 achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval: 0.71-0.77) and a Harrell generalized c-index of 0.72 (0.70-0.75). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

On the basis of the independent validation dataset, the 18 F-FDG PET model yielded a significantly higher predictive value than the amyloid PET model. 5 key findings →

Participants: 159 Evidence: low

Amyloid imaging with PET and measuring cortical thickness with MRI are suitable biomarkers to detect disease progression in early AD within a small sample. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

A subset of a dementia subgroup with characteristics predominantly associated with DM-related factors may underlie a pathophysiology different from AD, although these patients were clinically diagnosed as having AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 175 Evidence: moderate

Pseudotemporal measurements from baseline PET data explained 87% ( P Pseudotemporal analysis of baseline PET images is capable of predicting the regional pattern of longitudinal Aβ accumulation in AD at a group level. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 58 Evidence: moderate

These findings indicate EXT may be more sensitive to Aβ's role in preclinical AD than level and improve targeting of individuals for AD prevention trials. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Molecular imaging of Alzheimer disease pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology 2014-02-06

Development of molecular imaging agents for fibrillar β-amyloid positron-emission tomography during the past decade has brought molecular imaging of Alzheimer disease pathology into the spotlight. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease is characterized both by a lower mean level of functional connectivity as well as by diminished fluctuations in the level of synchronization. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Magnetic resonance imaging-based volumetric measurements provide a useful technique for quantifying in vivo regional cerebral atrophy in Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: An Update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 2022-11-02

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) is a term introduced in 2010 to encompass a spectrum of MRI findings observed in patients receiving investigational anti-amyloid beta (Aβ) immunotherapies for Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

18 F-SMBT-1 showed robust entry into the brain and reversible binding kinetics, with high tracer retention in basal ganglia, intermediate retention in cortical regions, and the lowest retention in cerebellum and white matter, which tightly follows the known regional brain distribution of MAO-B ( R 2 = 0.84). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

EEG connectivity analysis via a combination of source/connectivity biomarkers, highly correlating with neuropsychological AD diagnosis, could represent a promising tool in identification of AD patients. 2 key findings →

Participants: 295 Evidence: low

Gene ontology over-representation and functional gene network analyses indicate an increase in synaptic activity and changes in plasticity during the very early pre-symptomatic stage of the disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Growing evidence indicates an association between cerebral microhemorrhages (MHs) and amyloid β accumulation in Alzheimer disease (AD), but to the knowledge of the authors the association with tau burden is unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

MRI research examining structural brain atrophy in Alzheimer's disease (AD) generally focuses on medial temporal and cortical structures, but amyloid and tau deposits also accumulate in the caudate. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We assessed remote memory in 33 patients with dementia of Alzheimer's type (DAT) with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores between 17 and 30, and 30 matched controls using a Famous Faces Test and Famous Names Test designed to assess face recognition, identification and naming, and name recognition and identification, respectively, together with a range of anterograde episodic and semantic memory tests. 4 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

Neuroimaging with iron-sensitive MR sequences [gradient echo T2* and susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI)] identifies small signal voids that are suspected brain microbleeds. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

To ensure diversity, we developed a comprehensive recruitment strategy using a diverse, culturally‐trained staff that includes : • Identifying Dementia Specialists experienced recruiting minorities • Embedding high‐impact community engagement in select regions • Increasing capacity of specialists and PET facilities to engage minorities • Increasing pipeline of referrals to Dementia Specialists • Creating a culturally‐informed awareness campaign Result New IDEAS has enrolled 4,524 participants including 954 (21.1%) Black/African American, and 842 (18.6%) Hispanic/Latinx. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,524 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

10 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 10. The same 10 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