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 26–50 of 53 studies with an author at National Research Council (IT) (page 2 of 3) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 53 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.

A careful clinical evaluation of sleep disorders should be performed routinely in the clinical setting of persons with cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Mapping distributed sources of cortical rhythms in mild Alzheimer's disease. A multicentric EEG study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. NeuroImage 2004-05-01

The study aimed at mapping (i) the distributed electroencephalographic (EEG) sources specific for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared to vascular dementia (VaD) or normal elderly people (Nold) and (ii) the distributed EEG sources sensitive to the mild AD at different stages of severity. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Determination of sensitive and specific markers of very early AD progression is intended to aid researchers and clinicians to develop new treatments and monitor their effectiveness, as well as to lessen the time and cost of clinical trials. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

There is no disease-modifying treatment currently available for AD, one of the more impacting neurodegenerative diseases affecting more than 47.5 million people worldwide. 1 key finding →

Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate

At baseline, the mean MNA score was 22.5 ± 2.3. 5 key findings →

Participants: 105 Evidence: high

Does inflammatory bowel disease play a role in cognitive decline? A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of Crohn's & colitis 2026-05-01

IBD is associated with CI and increased dementia risk, with biologics potentially mitigating neuroinflammation-related decline. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Anti-inflammatory effects of flavonoids in neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. European journal of medicinal chemistry 2017-09-07

Neuroinflammation is one of the main mechanisms involved in the progression of several neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson, Alzheimer, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and others. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive decline occurred in 38.1% of participants but was not associated with MD adherence. 5 key findings →

Participants: 8,568 Evidence: low

Increasing evidences support the notion that the impairment of intracellular degradative machinery is responsible for the accumulation of oxidized/misfolded proteins that ultimately results in the deposition of protein aggregates. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD) show loss of cognitive functions and change in behavioral and functional state affecting the quality of their daily life and that of their families and caregivers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Neuroinflammatory changes play a pivotal role in the progression of Parkinson's disease (PD) pathogenesis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

At baseline, MCI participants displayed elevated levels of IL-17A, CX3CL1, CCL11, with a borderline increase of IL-6 and TNFα. 5 key findings →

Participants: 76 Evidence: low

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a group of early onset and progressive disorders, characterized by degeneration in the frontal and temporal lobes, and subsequent deterioration in cognition, personality, social behavior, and language, with aggregates of the RNA-binding protein TDP-43 being present in ~45% of the cases. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The project is expected to generate evidence on the effectiveness, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of multidomain interventions implemented across diverse real-world settings, including community, hospital, and long-term care. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We evaluated the brain metabolic correlates of main indexes of a widely used word list learning test, the Rey Auditory Verbal Memory Test (RAVLT), in a group of elderly subjects with memory complaints. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is a heterogeneous and progressive neurodegenerative disease, which in Western society mainly accounts for senile dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The pathological loss of nuclear TDP-43 is a hallmark of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), leading to extensive alterations in RNA metabolism and a broad number of neuronal transcripts. 1 key finding →

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