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 1–21 of 21 studies by Clark CM · 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.

Phase 2 safety trial targeting amyloid beta production with a gamma-secretase inhibitor in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2008-08-01

Group differences were seen in skin and subcutaneous tissue concerns (P=.05), including 3 possible drug rashes and 3 reports of hair color change in the treatment groups. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: high

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

FDG-PET improves accuracy in distinguishing frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2007-08-18

Distinguishing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) currently relies on a clinical history and examination, but positron emission tomography with [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) shows different patterns of hypometabolism in these disorders that might aid differential diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

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

Qualitative estimates of medial temporal atrophy as a predictor of progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2007-01-01

Adjusted estimates of MTA were associated with significantly increased risk of developing dementia within 3 years, suggesting that obtaining a magnetic resonance image during the evaluation of MCI may offer additional independent information about the risk of progression to dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 190 Evidence: low

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

High cerebrospinal fluid tau and low amyloid beta42 levels in the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and relation to apolipoprotein E genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1998-07-01

Levels of CSF Abeta42 decrease and levels of CSF tau increase in AD. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74 Evidence: moderate

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

Cerebral PET with florbetapir compared with neuropathology at autopsy for detection of neuritic amyloid-β plaques: a prospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2012-06-28

For one of the primary analyses, the interpretation of the florbetapir scans (majority interpretation of five nuclear medicine physicians, who classified each scan as amyloid positive or amyloid negative) was compared with amyloid pathology (assessed according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease standards, and classed as amyloid positive for moderate or frequent plaques or amyloid negative for no or sparse plaques); correlation of the image analysis results with amyloid burden was tested as a coprimary endpoint. 3 key findings →

Participants: 59 Evidence: low

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

Cerebrospinal fluid tau and beta-amyloid: how well do these biomarkers reflect autopsy-confirmed dementia diagnoses?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2003-12-01

Elevated CSF tau levels are associated with AD pathology and can help discriminate AD from other dementing disorders. 3 key findings →

Participants: 74 Evidence: moderate

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

Alpha-synuclein cortical Lewy bodies correlate with dementia in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2000-05-01

CLBs detected by alpha-synuclein antibodies in patients with PD are a more sensitive and specific correlate of dementia than the presence of Alzheimer's pathology, which was present in a minority of the cases in this series. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Frontotemporal dementia: clinicopathological correlations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2006-06-01

Clinical and neuropsychological features contribute to delineating the spectrum of pathology underlying a patient diagnosed with FTLD, but biomarkers are needed that, together with the clinical phenotype, can predict the underlying neuropathology. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Using positron emission tomography and florbetapir F18 to image cortical amyloid in patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2011-07-11

It introduces criteria to determine whether an image is associated with an intermediate-to-high likelihood of pathologic AD or with having any identifiable cortical amyloid level above that seen in low-risk young controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: moderate

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

Spatial patterns of brain atrophy in MCI patients, identified via high-dimensional pattern classification, predict subsequent cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. NeuroImage 2007-11-01

Spatial patterns of brain atrophy in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) were measured via methods of computational neuroanatomy. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Update on the biomarker core of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative subjects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2010-05-01

Here, we review progress by the Penn Biomarker Core in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) toward developing a pathological cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarker signature for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as a biomarker profile that predicts conversion of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or normal control subjects to AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Concomitant TAR-DNA-binding protein 43 pathology is present in Alzheimer disease and corticobasal degeneration but not in other tauopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology 2008-06-01

Pathologic TAR-DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is a disease protein in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Enrichment of C-terminal fragments in TAR DNA-binding protein-43 cytoplasmic inclusions in brain but not in spinal cord of frontotemporal lobar degeneration and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. The American journal of pathology 2008-06-05

TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP-43) has been recently described as a major pathological protein in both frontotemporal dementia with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Age and apolipoprotein E*4 allele effects on cerebrospinal fluid beta-amyloid 42 in adults with normal cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2006-07-01

These CSF A beta 42 findings are consistent with acceleration by the APOE*4 allele of pathogenic A beta 42 brain deposition starting in later middle age in persons with normal cognition. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Characteristics and performance of a modified version of the ADCS-CGIC CIBIC+ for mild cognitive impairment clinical trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2009-07-01

Change detected by the MCI-CGIC was associated with baseline clinical severity and with change in clinical ratings over 6 and 12 months, supporting the validity of a CGIC approach in MCI. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Biomarkers for early detection of Alzheimer pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neuro-Signals 2007-12-05

The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and the devastating consequences of late-life dementia motivates the drive to develop diagnostic biomarkers to reliably identify the pathology associated with this disorder. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Performance of the dementia severity rating scale: a caregiver questionnaire for rating severity in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 1996-01-01

The Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS) is an informant-based, multiple-choice questionnaire that assesses severity from the mildest to the most severe stages in the major functional and cognitive domains affected in Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

↑ 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