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 76–96 of 96 studies by Petersen RC marked Peer-reviewed (page 4 of 4) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 96 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.

The efficacy of the MMSE for screening was measured in a subsample of age- and sex-matched patients with dementia (N = 185) and control subjects (N = 227). 4 key findings →

Participants: 185 Evidence: low

After adjusting for sex, years of education, smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, apolipoprotein E ε4 carriership, and hearing rehabilitation (defined as hearing aid or cochlear implant use), neither PTA (hazard ratio [HR] per 10-decibels hearing level increase of 0·99 (95% CI 0·89-1·12; p=0·91) nor WRS (HR per 10% decrease of 0·98, 95% CI 0·89-1 ·07; p=0·65) was significantly associated with the development of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increased risk of type 2 diabetes in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Diabetes 2004-02-01

To address this, we first examined the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in a community-based controlled study, the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer Disease Patient Registry (ADPR), which follows patients with Alzheimer disease versus control subjects without Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

The present study indicated that most individuals with the comorbidity of epilepsy and dementia have complex partial seizures that may be adequately controlled on AED therapy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 63 Evidence: low

Rapidly progressive neurodegenerative dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2009-02-01

Based on this cohort, although CJD is the most likely cause of a rapidly progressive neurodegenerative dementia, frontotemporal lobar degeneration with motor neuron degeneration, diffuse Lewy body disease, tauopathies, and Alzheimer disease can also cause a rapidly progressive dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

Our results confirm plasma β-amyloid 42 /β-amyloid 40 as a robust biomarker of brain β-amyloid-positivity (area under curve, 0.80-0.87). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The current study tested the accuracy of primary MRI and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker candidates and neuropsychological tests for predicting the conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 81 Evidence: low

This study demonstrated DCBs' ability to distinguish , at baseline, between impending cognitive decline and non-decline groups where individuals in both groups were classified as cognitively normal. 5 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

We compare patterns of gray matter loss on MRI in subjects presenting as corticobasal syndrome (CBS) with Alzheimer disease pathology (CBS-AD) to those presenting as CBS with corticobasal degeneration pathology (CBS-CBD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The cognitive assessment protocol of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) was designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of cognitive assessment measures that might be valuable additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) or other concise batteries used in antidementia drug trials. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease diagnosis in individual subjects using structural MR images: validation studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. NeuroImage 2007-10-22

This paper presents preliminary evidence that application of SVM-based classification of an individual sMR scan relative to a library of scans can provide useful information in individual subjects for diagnosis of AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Progressive supranuclear palsy is associated with an elevated [ 18 F]AV-1451 signal in a characteristic and distinct regional pattern that correlates with disease severity and differs from the patterns observed in Alzheimer's dementia. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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    Where this research is being discussed: events