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 201–225 of 842 studies (page 9 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 older adults, variable agreement between in vivo imaging and CERAD NP score was observed. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In sum, we present a diagnostic tool for MCI and AD trained using baseline scans and a follow-up diagnosis regardless of progression, which is multi-diagnostic, generalizable across independent data sources and acquisition protocols, and with transparently reported performance. 5 key findings →

Participants: 570 Evidence: low

Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) was used to assess patterns of grey matter atrophy in the aMCI subjects at each time-point compared to the control group. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Ventricular enlargement may be an objective and sensitive measure of neuropathological change associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), suitable to assess disease progression for multi-centre studies. 2 key findings →

Participants: 152 Evidence: low

In one of the largest brain MRI studies to date, we used tensor-based morphometry (TBM) to create 3D maps of structural atrophy in 676 subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy elderly controls, scanned as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 676 Evidence: low

As one of the earliest structures to degenerate in Alzheimer's disease (AD), the hippocampus is the target of many studies of factors that influence rates of brain degeneration in the elderly. 4 key findings →

Participants: 490 Evidence: low

Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) is a powerful method to map the 3D profile of brain degeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Imaging and postmortem studies suggest that frontal lobe white matter (FLWM) volume expands until about the age of 44.6 years and then declines. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 34 Evidence: low

Neuropathological basis of magnetic resonance images in aging and dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2008-01-01

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is used widely for assessment of patients with cognitive impairment, but the pathological correlates are unclear, especially when multiple pathologies are present. 4 key findings →

Participants: 93 Evidence: moderate

Dementia poses a significant global health challenge for both clinicians and patients, impacting millions of individuals worldwide, yet its early diagnosis remains underexplored. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 415 Evidence: high

This study performed an anatomical parcellation of the MNI spatially normalized single-subject high-resolution T1 volume by delineating main sulci as landmarks to define 45 anatomical volumes of interest (AVOI) in each hemisphere. 4 key findings →

Rate of medial temporal lobe atrophy in typical aging and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1998-10-01

A statistically significant yearly decline in hippocampal volume and an increase in temporal horn volume was identified in elderly control subjects who represent typical aging individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low

We selected the cerebellum as a pseudo-reference region based on the immunohistochemical comparison of age-matched PS2APP and WT mice. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Amyloid imaging of dutch-type hereditary cerebral amyloid angiopathy carriers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2019-08-12

D-CAA M + showed greater age-dependent FLR PiB retention (p - , and serially imaged asymptomatic M + demonstrated greater longitudinal increases (p = 0.004). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Conversion of amyloid positive and negative MCI to AD over 3 years: an 11C-PIB PET study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-08

PIB-positive subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are significantly more likely to convert to AD than PIB-negative patients, faster converters having higher PIB retention levels at baseline than slower converters. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The amyloid β subgroups did not differ for any psychobehavioural, cognitive, actigraphy, and structural and functional neuroimaging results after adjustment for age, sex, and level of education More participants positive for amyloid β deposition had the APOE ε4 allele (33 [38%] vs 29 [13%], p 1-42 concentration in CSF significantly correlated with mean 18 F-florbetapir uptake at baseline (r=-0·62, p 1-42 to amyloid β 1-40 (r=-0·61, p 18 F-florbetapir uptake at baseline (mean standard uptake value ratio 1·46 [SD 0·16] vs 1·02 [SD 0·20]), and more were carriers of the APOE ε4 allele (three [75%] of four vs 33 [39%] of 83). 1 key finding →

Participants: 318 Evidence: low

The deep-learning time-to-event model predicted individual subjects' progression to AD dementia with a concordance index of 0.762 on 439 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative testing MCI subjects with follow-up duration from 6 to 78 months (quartiles: [24, 42, 54]) and a concordance index of 0.781 on 40 Australian Imaging Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of Aging testing MCI subjects with follow-up duration from 18 to 54 months (quartiles: [18, 36, 54]). 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,146 Evidence: low

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