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 51–75 of 103 studies by Jack CR (page 3 of 5) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 103 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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.

Rates of β-amyloid accumulation are independent of hippocampal neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2014-04-04

We describe a 2-feature biomarker approach to classifying elderly CN subjects that is complementary to the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association preclinical staging criteria. 2 key findings →

Participants: 252 Evidence: low

Patients with MCI had a predominant memory impairment with relative sparing of other cognitive domains and were intermediate between clinically normal individuals and patients with AD on cognitive and functional ratings. 3 key findings →

Participants: 769 Evidence: low

ADNI-3 will aim to inform AD treatment trials and facilitate development of AD disease-modifying treatments. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) beginning in October 2004, is a 6-year research project that studies changes of cognition, function, brain structure and function, and biomarkers in elderly controls, subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuroimaging in Alzheimer disease: an evidence-based review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neuroimaging clinics of North America 2003-05-01

Neuroimaging is valuable in predicting future development of AD in patients with MCI and in carriers of the ApoE epsilon 4 allele who are at a higher risk of developing AD than are cognitively normal elderly individuals. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Association of hypometabolism and amyloid levels in aging, normal subjects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2014-05-02

Hypometabolism in PiB-positive, cognitively normal subjects in a population-based cohort occurs in AD-signature cortical regions and to a lesser extent in other cortical regions. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Memory, executive, and multidomain subtle cognitive impairment: clinical and biomarker findings

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2015-06-17

We studied the biomarker signatures and prognoses of 3 different subtle cognitive impairment (SCI) groups (executive, memory, and multidomain) as well as the subjective memory complaints (SMC) group. 4 key findings →

Participants: 522 Evidence: low

Major imaging biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease include amyloid deposition [imaged with [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) PET], altered glucose metabolism (imaged with [(18)F]fluro-deoxyglucose PET), and structural atrophy (imaged by MRI). 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We found that ML-PRS approaches improved upon standard PRS for prediction of AD endophenotypes, partly related to improved accounting for nonlinear effects of genetic susceptibility alleles. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,791 Evidence: low

Suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology--concept and controversy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2016-01-18

Suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology (SNAP) is a biomarker-based concept that applies to individuals with normal levels of amyloid-β biomarkers in the brain, but in whom biomarkers of neurodegeneration are abnormal. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

MRI patterns of atrophy associated with progression to AD in amnestic mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2007-09-26

The regions of loss observed in subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) who progressed to Alzheimer disease (AD) within 18 months of the MRI are typical of subjects with AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Brain imaging with diffusion-weighted MRI (dMRI) is sensitive to microstructural white matter (WM) changes associated with brain aging and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Participants: 317 Evidence: low

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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