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 101–125 of 243 studies in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience (page 5 of 10) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 243 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.

< 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified right hippocampal MD and t-tau as optimal classifiers for AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Among 225 patients (mean age 65.4 years, 54.2% male), MCR prevalence was 16.4%. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 225 Evidence: low

Animal studies indicate that Dang Gui Shao Yao San (DGSYS) may enhance cognitive function in VaD models through mechanisms such as antioxidation and the enhancement of cerebral blood flow. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Physical as well as cognitive training interventions improve specific cognitive functions but effects barely generalize on global cognition. 4 key findings →

Participants: 237 Evidence: low

These results suggest pairing tDCS with cognitive training enhances functional connectivity and working memory performance in older adults, and thus may hold promise as a method for remediating age-related cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: low

Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

However, the brain plasticity associated with these proposed benefits of combined therapy has not yet been investigated in elderly subjects. 5 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

The levels of plasma ATN biomarkers (Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio, p-tua181, and NfL) were significantly changed in clinically diagnosed AD patients and they all associated with different domains of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

People with Down syndrome (DS) are at high risk for developing Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

For prediction of dementia in MCI, the AD signature cortical thickness biomarker performed better than hippocampal volume. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Our study reveals that PS in DLB is associated with specific deficits in attention and visuospatial/executive function, alongside more severe neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate

The rate of cognitive decline among patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) varies, and it is thus crucial to accurately predict the probability of cognitive deterioration in patients with MCI. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Language batteries used to assess the skills of elderly individuals, such as naming and semantic verbal fluency, present some limitations in differentiating healthy controls from patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (a-MCI). 1 key finding →

Participants: 77 Evidence: low

TREM2-Dependent Effects on Microglia in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2018-07-09

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a late-onset dementia characterized by the deposition of amyloid plaques and formation of neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) which lead to neuronal loss and cognitive deficits. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Multi-functional role of apolipoprotein E in neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2025-01-29

Genetic diversity in the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene has been identified as the major susceptibility genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (SAD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Participants with SSD exhibited a greater increase in plasma NfL levels and more pronounced declines in global cognition, memory, executive function, language, and processing speed over 2 years compared to non-SSD participants. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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