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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–50 of 122 studies by Knopman DS (page 2 of 5) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 122 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.

Subjects

Other authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,259 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.

The metabolic brain signature of cognitive resilience in the 80+: beyond Alzheimer pathologies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2019-04-01

Our main findings were: (i) FDG-PET uptake in the bilateral anterior cingulate cortex and anterior temporal pole was associated with baseline global cognition in cognitively stable 80+ (the resilience signature); (ii) established Alzheimer's disease imaging biomarkers did not predict baseline global cognition in this subset of participants; (iii) in the full MCSA 80+ and ADNI cohorts, amyloid burden and FDG-PET in the resilience signature were the stronger predictors of baseline global cognition; (iv) sex and systemic vascular health predicted FDG-PET in the resilience signature, suggesting vascular health maintenance as a potential pathway to preserve the metabolism of these areas; and (v) the resilience signature provided significant information about global longitudinal cognitive change even when considering amyloid status in both the MCSA and ADNI cohorts. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

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

Age, Sex, and APOE ε4 Effects on Memory, Brain Structure, and β-Amyloid Across the Adult Life Span

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-05-01

Overall, memory worsened from age 30 years through the 90s. The HVa worsened gradually from age 30 years to the mid-60s and more steeply beyond that age. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,246 Evidence: low

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

Diabetes and elevated hemoglobin A1c levels are associated with brain hypometabolism but not amyloid accumulation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2014-03-20

These factors should be investigated in longitudinal studies for their role in detecting onset of symptoms in AD. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 749 Evidence: moderate

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

Prevalence of mild cognitive impairment is higher in men. The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2010-09-01

Among 1,969 subjects without dementia, 329 subjects had MCI, with a prevalence of 16.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-17.5) for any MCI, 11.1% (95% CI 9.8-12.3) for amnestic MCI, and 4.9% (95% CI 4.0-5.8) for nonamnestic MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,969 Evidence: low

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

The Association of Late-Life Diabetes Status and Hyperglycemia With Incident Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: The ARIC Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Diabetes care 2019-05-21

Diabetes status, poor glycemic control, and longer diabetes duration were associated with worse cognitive outcomes over a median follow-up of 5 years. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,099 Evidence: low

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

Association of Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease With Brain β-Amyloid Deposition: Secondary Analysis of the ARIC Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-03-01

Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is an important cause of stroke and has also been recently identified as an important risk factor for all-cause dementia, but the mechanism of its association with cognitive performance is not fully understood. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 346 Evidence: moderate

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

Association Between Mentally Stimulating Activities in Late Life and the Outcome of Incident Mild Cognitive Impairment, With an Analysis of the APOE ε4 Genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-03-01

Cognitively normal elderly individuals who engage in specific mentally stimulating activities even in late life have a decreased risk of incident MCI. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 973 Evidence: moderate

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

Higher risk of progression to dementia in mild cognitive impairment cases who revert to normal

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2013-12-18

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 153 of 534 participants (28.7%) with prevalent or incident MCI progressed to dementia (71.3 per 1,000 person-years). 2 key findings →

Participants: 534 Evidence: moderate

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Lecanemab for Individuals With Early-Stage Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2024-03-14

Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype is cost-effective vs SoC alone for patients with MCI or mild dementia due to AD. 2 key findings →

Design: modelling Evidence: moderate

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

The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2011-04-21

The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: predicting future clinical change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

MRI and CSF provide complimentary predictive information about time to conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease and combination of the 2 provides better prediction than either source alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 399 Evidence: low

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

An operational approach to National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2012-04-09

This cross-sectional evaluation of the NIA-AA criteria for preclinical AD indicates that the 1-3 staging criteria coupled with stage 0 and SNAP categories classify 97% of CN subjects from a population-based sample, leaving only 3% unclassified. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Prevalence and Outcomes of Amyloid Positivity Among Persons Without Dementia in a Longitudinal, Population-Based Setting

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-08-01

Of 3894 participants, 1671 underwent PET imaging and were included in the study; 2198 did not undergo imaging, and 25 were excluded for other reasons. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,894 Evidence: low

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

Characterization of frontotemporal dementia and/or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis associated with the GGGGCC repeat expansion in C9ORF72

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2012-03-01

Incomplete penetrance was suggested in two kindreds, and the youngest generation had significantly earlier age of onset (>10 years) compared with the next oldest generation in 11 kindreds. 2 key findings →

Participants: 63 Evidence: low

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

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: diagnostic discrimination and cognitive correlations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low

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

Mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease in the community

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2013-08-01

The NIA-AA criteria apply to most MCI subjects in both the community and clinical trials settings; however, a sizeable proportion of subjects had conflicting biomarkers, which may be very important and need to be explored. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Baseline neuropsychiatric symptoms and the risk of incident mild cognitive impairment: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The American journal of psychiatry 2014-05-01

An increased incidence of mild cognitive impairment was observed in community-dwelling elderly adults who had nonpsychotic psychiatric symptoms at baseline. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 365 Evidence: moderate

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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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