alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 63 studies by Brayne C (page 1 of 3) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Other authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

A systematic review of prevalence studies of dementia in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society 2005-10-01

Substantial variation in the prevalence of dementia in Parkinson's disease (PDD) has been reported. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,767 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Healthy Ageing Through Internet Counselling in the Elderly: the HATICE randomised controlled trial for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. BMJ open 2016-06-10

Recruitment of 2600 older people (≥65 years) at increased risk of cardiovascular disease will take place in the Netherlands, Finland and France. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Frequency of LATE neuropathologic change across the spectrum of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology: combined data from 13 community-based or population-based autopsy cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2022-06-13

Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC) and Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC) are each associated with substantial cognitive impairment in aging populations. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,665 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Psychosocial factors that shape patient and carer experiences of dementia diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review of qualitative studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2012-10-30

There is an extensive body of qualitative literature on the experiences of community-dwelling individuals with dementia on receiving and adapting to a diagnosis of dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 3,095 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A two-decade comparison of prevalence of dementia in individuals aged 65 years and older from three geographical areas of England: results of the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study I and II

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2013-07-17

Sensitivity analyses suggest that these estimates are robust to the change in response. 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,500 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2015-10-29

Dementia is a progressive syndrome of global cognitive impairment with significant health and social care costs. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 9,422 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The distinct cognitive syndromes of Parkinson's disease: 5 year follow-up of the CamPaIGN cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2009-10-07

We have demonstrated that three baseline measures, namely, age >or=72 years, semantic fluency less than 20 words in 90 s and inability to copy an intersecting pentagons figure, are significant predictors of dementia risk, thus validating our previous findings. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Designing an Internet-Based Multidomain Intervention for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: The HATICE Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2018-01-01

Despite differences in CVR management within the countries considered, it was possible to design and implement the HATICE multidomain intervention. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The neuropathological profile of mild cognitive impairment (MCI): a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2011-12-06

Whether mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has a distinct neuropathological profile that reflects an intermediate state between no cognitive impairment and dementia is not clear. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 162 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Incidence and Prevalence of Frontotemporal Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-11-01

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, estimates indicate that FTD is comparable in frequency to dementia with Lewy bodies and occurs at higher rates than progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet 2024-08-10

This expert commission synthesized decades of population-level (observational) research to estimate how much dementia risk could theoretically be reduced by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors across life, from childhood education to late-life social isolation. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Mild cognitive impairment: a concept in evolution

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Journal of internal medicine 2014-03-01

The construct of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has evolved over the past 10 years since the publication of the new MCI definition at the Key Symposium in 2003, but the core criteria have remained unchanged. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prevalence, correlates and course of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia in the population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 2009-03-01

Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia affect nearly all people with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 587 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Effect of smoking on global cognitive function in nondemented elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2004-03-01

Contrary to early case-control studies that suggested smoking protects against Alzheimer disease (AD), recent prospective studies have shown that elderly who smoke may be at increased risk for dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 17,610 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Primary care and dementia: 2. Long-term care at home: psychosocial interventions, information provision, carer support and case management

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2010-07-01

Caring for people with dementia in primary care demands the same systematic approach as the management of other long-term conditions. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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