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 1–24 of 24 studies by Morris JC in Neurology · 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.

Rofecoxib: no effect on Alzheimer's disease in a 1-year, randomized, blinded, controlled study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurology 2004-01-01

The failure of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibition to slow the progression of AD may indicate either that the disease process is too advanced to modify in patients with established dementia or that cyclo-oxygenase-2 does not play a significant role in the pathogenesis of the disorder. 5 key findings →

Participants: 692 Evidence: low

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

The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 1989-09-01

The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) has developed brief, comprehensive, and reliable batteries of clinical and neuropsychological tests for assessment of patients with the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate

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

A 1-year, placebo-controlled preservation of function survival study of donepezil in AD patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2001-08-01

Patients with AD continue to show detectable disease progression over time, but treatment with donepezil for 1 year was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of functional decline compared with placebo. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The cortical signature of prodromal AD: regional thinning predicts mild AD dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2008-12-24

Thinning in specific cortical areas known to be affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) is detectable in individuals with questionable AD dementia (QAD) and predicts conversion to mild AD dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 49 Evidence: moderate

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

Normative estimates of cross-sectional and longitudinal brain volume decline in aging and AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2005-03-01

Nondemented individuals exhibit a slow rate of whole-brain atrophy from early in adulthood with white-matter loss beginning in middle age; in older adults, the onset of dementia of the Alzheimer type is associated with a markedly accelerated atrophy rate. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

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

Survival and mortality differences between dementia with Lewy bodies vs Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2006-12-01

Patients with DLB had an increased risk of mortality vs patients with AD (hazard ratio [HR] 1.88, 95% CI: 1.4 to 2.5). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 315 Evidence: moderate

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

Resting bold fMRI differentiates dementia with Lewy bodies vs Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2011-04-27

Changes in functional connectivity in DLB indicate patterns of activation that are distinct from those seen in AD and may improve discrimination of DLB from AD and cognitively normal individuals. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 88 Evidence: moderate

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

Predicting Driving Cessation Among Cognitively Normal Older Drivers: The Role of Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Clinical Assessments

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2024-04-15

With the aging US population and increasing incidence of Alzheimer disease (AD), understanding factors contributing to driving cessation among older adults is crucial for clinicians. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 283 Evidence: moderate

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

Rates of progression in mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2002-10-01

The lack of effective predictors of the rate of dementia progression extends to the very earliest stages of the disease, including what is often called MCI. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 289 Evidence: moderate

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

Longitudinal course and neuropathologic outcomes in original vs revised MCI and in pre-MCI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2006-08-01

Mild cognitive impairment as originally and currently defined is usually early stage Alzheimer disease, which can begin with a cognitive deficit other than memory. 1 key finding →

Participants: 32 Evidence: low

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

Longitudinal Relationships of White Matter Hyperintensities and Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers Across the Adult Life Span

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2023-05-18

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) correlate with Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers cross-sectionally and modulate AD pathogenesis. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Very mild Alzheimer's disease: informant-based clinical, psychometric, and pathologic distinction from normal aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 1991-04-01

We compare clinicopathologic data from 10 subjects identified in the very mild stage of senile dementia of the Alzheimer type with findings from similar studies in four cognitively normal subjects. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

A longitudinal study of drivers with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-23

This study confirms previous reports of potentially hazardous driving in persons with early Alzheimer disease, but also indicates that some individuals with very mild dementia can continue to drive safely for extended periods of time. 3 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The consortium to establish a registry for Alzheimer's disease (CERAD). Part IV. Rates of cognitive change in the longitudinal assessment of probable Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 1993-12-01

Reliable information on rate of progression of cognitive impairment in probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) is important for evaluating possible beneficial effects of therapeutic agents and in planning long-term care for patients with this chronic illness. 1 key finding →

Participants: 430 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Altered expression of synaptic proteins occurs early during progression of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Neurology 2001-01-01

The expression levels of three synaptic proteins (synaptophysin, synaptotagmin, and growth-associated protein 43 [GAP43]) in AD cases clinically classified by Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score were analyzed. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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