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 26–50 of 61 studies by Stern Y (page 2 of 3) · 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.

Mediterranean diet and Alzheimer disease mortality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2007-09-01

Adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MeDi) may affect not only risk for Alzheimer disease (AD) but also subsequent disease course: Higher adherence to the MeDi is associated with lower mortality in AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 192 Evidence: low

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

Food combination and Alzheimer disease risk: a protective diet

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-04-12

Simultaneous consideration of previous knowledge regarding potentially AD-related nutrients and multiple food groups can aid in identifying food combinations that are associated with AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Depressive symptoms precede memory decline, but not vice versa, in non-demented older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2014-01-17

These findings suggest that depressive symptoms precede memory decline, but not vice versa, in late life. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,425 Evidence: moderate

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

Diabetes mellitus and risk of Alzheimer's disease and dementia with stroke in a multiethnic cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. American journal of epidemiology 2001-10-01

Research on the relation between diabetes mellitus and dementia has produced conflicting results, and the relation has not been investigated among Blacks and Hispanics. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Motor impairment in PD: relationship to incident dementia and age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2000-08-01

Of 173 patients followed for at least 1 year, 50 became demented according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, revised 3rd edition (DSM III-R) criteria (mean follow-up, 3.6 +/- 2. 2 years). 5 key findings →

Participants: 173 Evidence: moderate

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

Dementia after stroke: baseline frequency, risks, and clinical features in a hospitalized cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 1992-06-01

We determined the frequency of dementia in a cohort of 251 patients aged greater than or equal to 60 years hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke, based on examinations performed 3 months after stroke onset. 5 key findings →

Participants: 251 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Diagnosis of dementia in a heterogeneous population. Development of a neuropsychological paradigm-based diagnosis of dementia and quantified correction for the effects of education

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1992-05-01

A brief diagnostic battery of neuropsychological tests was developed for a large-scale epidemiological study of dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

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

Contribution of vascular risk factors to the progression in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2009-03-01

In generalized estimating equation models (adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and years of education), higher cholesterol (total cholesterol and LDL-C) concentrations and history of diabetes were associated with faster cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

HIV-associated cognitive impairment before and after the advent of combination therapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of neurovirology 2002-04-01

The objective of this study was to describe the occurrence of HIV dementia and neuropsychological testing abnormalities in a new cohort of HIV-seropositive individuals at high risk for HIV dementia and to compare these results to a cohort before the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Cognitive reserve and lifestyle

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology 2003-08-01

The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) suggests that innate intelligence or aspects of life experience like educational or occupational attainments may supply reserve, in the form of a set of skills or repertoires that allows some people to cope with progressing Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology better than others. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Reading level attenuates differences in neuropsychological test performance between African American and White elders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS 2002-03-01

The current study sought to determine if discrepancies in quality of education could explain differences in cognitive test scores between African American and White elders matched on years of education. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

↑ 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