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 401–425 of 1,328 studies of type cross-sectional study (page 17 of 54) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

This list as a page: Cross-sectional study in the library →

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.

Apolipoprotein (APOE) e4 genotype is an accepted risk factor for accelerated cognitive aging and dementia, though its neurostructural substrates are unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 8,395 Evidence: moderate

Total tau protein (T-Tau) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) have emerged as candidate plasma biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but studies have not compared how these biomarkers cross-sectionally or longitudinally associate with cognitive and neuroimaging measures. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 995 Evidence: moderate

Plasma markers have been reported to be associated with brain amyloid burden, tau pathology, or neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 183 Evidence: moderate

We analyzed data from 462 ADNI participants without dementia who underwent Aβ ([ 18 F]florbetapir or [ 18 F]florbetaben) and tau ([ 18 F]flortaucipir) PET, structural MRI, and cognitive testing. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate

Dementia diagnosis increasingly relies on blood-based biomarkers, yet their performance in diverse populations remains insufficiently characterized. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 605 Evidence: moderate

Neuropathological alterations in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine 2011-09-01

The neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD) include "positive" lesions such as amyloid plaques and cerebral amyloid angiopathy, neurofibrillary tangles, and glial responses, and "negative" lesions such as neuronal and synaptic loss. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest that the informant report is particularly relevant in patients with MCI where it strongly relates to higher amyloid-PET, indicative of impairment due to AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

These findings contribute to the understanding of preclinical familial Alzheimer's disease and help set the stage for assessment of amyloid-modifying treatments in the prevention of familial Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Over an average follow-up of 4 y, dementia developed in 112 subjects, including 70 who received a diagnosis of AD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 816 Evidence: moderate

Many community-residing PWD and their caregivers have unmet dementia-related needs for care, services, and support. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 254 Evidence: low

Older age and vascular disease, particularly among African Americans, are associated with increased brain atrophy and WMH burden. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 769 Evidence: moderate

When compared with the Low MedDiet group, the High MedDiet group was associated with better L&M performance and larger dentate gyri. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate

Microglial activation occurs early in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and previous studies reported both detrimental and protective effects of microglia on AD progression. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Subjective Cognitive Decline Among Hispanic and/or Latino Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-09-02

Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be an early indicator of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet its association with plasma biomarkers remains unclear among middle-aged and older adults (aged 50-86 years). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,712 Evidence: moderate

Plasma-based biomarkers would be potential biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) because they are more available and cost-effective than cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or neuroimaging. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 185 Evidence: moderate

Imaging and postmortem studies suggest that frontal lobe white matter (FLWM) volume expands until about the age of 44.6 years and then declines. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 34 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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