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 126–150 of 1,328 studies of type cross-sectional study (page 6 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.

This study examined the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on healthcare utilization among older adults with normal cognition and impaired cognition/dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,698 Evidence: low

Successful discharge of beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 43.4% in 2007 to 53.9% in 2015 (average annual percent change (AAPC) = 2.1 (95% CI = 2.0-2.2)); those without ADRD also increased (from 59.1% to 63.6%, AAPC = 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7-1.1)) but not as fast as those with ADRD (P < .01). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,043 Evidence: low

53.0% of the participants were in the group of possible mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 117 Evidence: moderate

Over 20% of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) worldwide are Chinese, although the efficacy of existing blood-based measures of AD biomarkers is largely unknown in Asian cohorts. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 425 Evidence: moderate

This study highlights challenges for the reproducibility of α-syn SAA results across different protocols applied by different laboratories. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 30 Evidence: early

Female individuals had higher plaque burden than male individuals (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.29; P Conclusions and relevance The findings indicate that female sex, APOEε4, and both race and African ancestry were jointly associated with amyloid in this study population. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,268 Evidence: moderate

Age, Sex, and APOE ε4 Effects on Memory, Brain Structure, and β-Amyloid Across the Adult Life Span

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-05-01

Overall, memory worsened from age 30 years through the 90s. The HVa worsened gradually from age 30 years to the mid-60s and more steeply beyond that age. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,246 Evidence: low

This study suggests that early tau deposition may follow multiple trajectories during preclinical AD and may involve several cortical regions. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 447 Evidence: moderate

Disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are likely to be most beneficial when initiated in the presymptomatic phase. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal fMRI in elderly reveals loss of hippocampal activation with clinical decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2010-05-12

Longitudinal fMRI provides a reliable indicator of brain activation over time, and may prove useful in identifying functional brain changes associated with cognitive decline on the trajectory toward clinical Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate

Relationship of regional brain β-amyloid to gait speed

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2015-12-07

More research is needed to elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying these regional associations, which may involve motor and sensorimotor circuits hitherto largely neglected in the pathophysiology of AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

This is the first study to show that WM integrity is associated with frailty in older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 227 Evidence: high

Hypertension and cerebral white matter lesions in a prospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2002-04-01

White matter lesions are frequently found on cerebral MRI scans of elderly people and are thought to be important in the pathogenesis of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,077 Evidence: low

An individual's brainAGE is the difference between chronological age and age predicted from machine-learning models of brain-imaging data. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 869 Evidence: moderate

We evaluated 22 persons with nfvPPA (mean age: 67.3 years; 13 female patients) and confirmed underlying 4-repeat tauopathy, 15 persons with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA; mean age: 66.5 years; 8 female patients), and 10 healthy controls (HCs; 70 years; 5 female patients). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

Evidence strongly supports the important role of insulin resistance in cognitive decline and dementia and suggests that insulin sensitizers may protect against cognitive decline in diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate

Synaptic dysfunction occurs early in senile dementias, presumably as a result of decreased levels of functional synaptic proteins as found in autopsied brains of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

Cross-sectional functional magnetic resonance imaging studies using a memory task in patients with mild cognitive impairment have produced discordant results, with some studies reporting increased hippocampal activity--consistent with findings in genetic at-risk populations--and other studies reporting decreased hippocampal activity, relative to normal controls. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate

ATN (β-amyloid [Aβ], tau, neurodegeneration) system categorizes individuals based on their core Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 410 Evidence: low

Patients with AD and individuals at risk for AD show reduced glucose metabolism, as indexed by fludeoxyglucose F 18-labeled positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 150 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