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 1–25 of 26 studies by Salmon DP (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Effects of exercise on cognition and Alzheimer's biomarkers in a randomized controlled trial of adults with mild cognitive impairment: The EXERT study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2025-04-24

Exercise intensity did not differentially affect cognitive trajectory. 2 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 296 Evidence: moderate

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

Tracking early decline in cognitive function in older individuals at risk for Alzheimer disease dementia: the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Cognitive Function Instrument

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-04-01

At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P Conclusions and relevance Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 468 Evidence: moderate

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

The preclinical Alzheimer cognitive composite: measuring amyloid-related decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2014-08-01

In ADNI, Aβ-positive participants showed more decline than did Aβ-negative participants with regard to the ADCS-PACC score at 24 months (mean [SE] difference, -1.239 [0.522] [95% CI, -2.263 to -0.215]; P = .02). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: overview and initial results

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2006-10-01

This initial report describes the ongoing 4-year longitudinal study and provides baseline results, which confirm the feasibility of obtaining home-based clinical information via mail or telephone. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 644 Evidence: high

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

Consensus guidelines for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB): report of the consortium on DLB international workshop

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 1996-11-01

We identified optimal staining methods for each of these and devised a protocol for the evaluation of cortical LB frequency based on a brain sampling procedure consistent with CERAD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Safety and Efficacy of Edonerpic Maleate for Patients With Mild to Moderate Alzheimer Disease: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2019-11-01

Of 482 participants in the safety population, 140 of 158 participants (88.6%) assigned to placebo, 117 of 166 participants (70.5%) to 224 mg of edonerpic maleate, and 120 of 158 participants (76.0%) to 448 mg of edonerpic maleate completed the trial. 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 482 Evidence: high

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

Synaptic biomarkers in CSF aid in diagnosis, correlate with cognition and predict progression in MCI and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2019-12-09

CSF synaptic biomarkers, particularly NPTX2, which regulates synaptic homeostasis, relate to cognition and predict progression in AD beyond Aβ1-42 and Tau. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Comparisons of verbal fluency tasks in the detection of dementia of the Alzheimer type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1992-12-01

The performances of 89 patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) and 53 demographically matched elderly normal control subjects were compared on four verbal fluency measures (category, letter, first names, and supermarket fluency). 3 key findings →

Participants: 89 Evidence: low

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

Incidence of and risk factors for hallucinations and delusions in patients with probable AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2000-05-01

The authors found a relatively high incidence of hallucinations and delusions in patients diagnosed with probable AD and suggest that specific neurologic signs, cognitive abilities, and accelerated decline may be predictive markers for their occurrence. 5 key findings →

Participants: 329 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Subjective cognitive complaints contribute to misdiagnosis of mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS 2014-08-26

Subjective cognitive complaints are a criterion for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), despite their uncertain relationship to objective memory performance in MCI. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Longitudinal evaluation of dementia of the Alzheimer type: a comparison of 3 standardized mental status examinations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 1990-08-01

We administered 3 commonly employed tests of mental status (the Information-Memory-Concentration test [IMC], the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE], and the Dementia Rating Scale [DRS]) to 92 patients with probable dementia of the Alzheimer type. 4 key findings →

Participants: 92 Evidence: low

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

The Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) as a Measure of Picture Naming Ability in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS 2019-06-28

The present study investigated the ability of the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT), a picture naming test recently added to the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's (NACC) Uniform Data Set neuropsychological test battery, to detect naming impairment (i.e., dysnomia) across stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,981 Evidence: low

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

What best differentiates Lewy body from Alzheimer's disease in early-stage dementia?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2006-01-09

To determine which clinical feature(s) [among visual hallucinations (VH), extrapyramidal signs (EPS) and visuospatial impairment] in the earliest stages of disease best predicted a diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) at autopsy, first-visit data of 23 pathologically proven DLB and 94 Alzheimer's disease cases were compared. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Multi-modal imaging predicts memory performance in normal aging and cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2008-10-05

This study (n=161) related morphometric MR imaging, FDG-PET and APOE genotype to memory scores in normal controls (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 161 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