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 1–20 of 20 studies by Molinuevo JL · 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.

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.

Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. 4 key findings →

Participants: 933 Evidence: high

Alzheimer's dementia affects more than 40 million people worldwide with substantial increases in prevalence anticipated. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 24,000 Evidence: moderate

Neurodegenerative disorder risk in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder: study in 174 patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. PloS one 2014-02-26

In a large IRBD cohort diagnosed in a tertiary referal sleep center, prolonged follow-up indicated that the majority of patients are eventually diagnosed with the synucleinopathies PD, DLB and less frequently MSA. 3 key findings →

Participants: 174 Evidence: moderate

Sleep abnormalities are prevalent in Alzheimer's disease, with sleep quality already impaired at its preclinical stage. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,168 Evidence: moderate

Our findings indicate that in most patients diagnosed with IRBD this parasomnia represents the prodromal phase of a Lewy body disorder. 1 key finding →

Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate

Our results suggest that reactive astrogliosis, as indicated by different fluid biomarkers, influences the pathogenic cascade during the preclinical stage of AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found reduced ¹²³I-FP-CIT binding in the striatum (p=0·045) in 17 (40%) of 43 participants compared with 18 controls, and substantia nigra hyperechogenicity in 14 (36%) of 39 participants with IRBD, compared with 16 (11%) of 149 controls (p=0·0002). 5 key findings →

Participants: 43 Evidence: low

20 (45%) patients developed a neurological disorder after a mean of 11.5 years from the reported onset of RBD and a mean follow-up of 5.1 years from the diagnosis of idiopathic RBD at our sleep centre. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Low cerebrospinal fluid concentration of mitochondrial DNA in preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2013-09-04

Using quantitative polymerase chain reaction techniques, we measured circulating cell-free mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from study participants, selected from a cohort of 282 subjects, who were classified according to their concentrations of amyloid β1-42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau and by the presence or absence of dementia, into asymptomatic subjects at risk of AD, symptomatic patients diagnosed with sporadic AD, presymptomatic subjects carrying pathogenic PSEN1 mutations, and patients diagnosed with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 282 Evidence: moderate

After disclosure, 27 patients with amyloid-positive SCD+ (median [IQR] age, 70 [66-74] years; gender: 14 men [52%]; median [IQR] education: 15 [13 to 17] years, median [IQR] Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score, 29 [28 to 30]) had higher median (IQR) IES-R total score (10 [2 to 14] vs 0 [0 to 2]; P Conclusions and relevance The disclosure of a positive amyloid-PET result to patients with SCD+ was associated with a bigger psychological change, yet such change did not reach the threshold for clinical concern. 5 key findings →

Participants: 27 Evidence: low

The new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) acknowledges the interest given to biomarkers to improve the specificity in subjects with dementia and to facilitate an early diagnosis of the pathophysiological process of AD in the prodromal or pre-dementia stage. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Multidomain intervention studies conducted so far appear to have mixed results and substantial variability in target populations, format and intensity of interventions, choice of control conditions, and outcome measures. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

Drug repositioning and repurposing for Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2020-09-16

Drug repositioning and repurposing can enhance traditional drug development efforts and could accelerate the identification of new treatments for individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia and mild cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our study shows that increasing long-term exposure to air pollution may increase the odds of depression and the use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines. 3 key findings →

Participants: 958 Evidence: low

This study assesses whether C-terminal fragments (CTF) of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) are present in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and their potential as biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: mapping the road to the clinic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2018-11-01

Biomarker discovery and development for clinical research, diagnostics and therapy monitoring in clinical trials have advanced rapidly in key areas of medicine - most notably, oncology and cardiovascular diseases - allowing rapid early detection and supporting the evolution of biomarker-guided, precision-medicine-based targeted therapies. 5 key findings →

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 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