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 1–25 of 30 studies in Journal of the American Heart Association (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 30 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 smartphone application collected 2 modalities of cognitive data, digital voice and screen-based behaviors, from the FHS (Framingham Heart Study) multigenerational Generation 2 (Gen 2) and Generation 3 (Gen 3) cohorts. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 455 Evidence: moderate

Portable, low‐field imaging could be useful for identifying moderate to severe WMHs. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate

This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 255 Evidence: high

We found no statistically significant difference in measures of WM injury by race and ethnicity after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and socioeconomic status. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,036 Evidence: low

Higher structural stiffness of the carotid artery is associated with cognitive decline, whereas both structural and load‐dependent stiffness are associated with brain structural abnormalities common in Alzheimer disease‐related dementias. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,489 Evidence: moderate

We found no significant difference in dementia incidence over a 20‐year follow‐up period compared with matched TIA‐free controls. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 297 Evidence: high

AF is associated with greater cognitive decline and increased risk of dementia, independent of ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →

Participants: 515 Evidence: low

APOE-ε4 carrier status appears to modify the cross-sectional association between cardiac output and neuropsychological performance such that lower cardiac output relates to poorer performances among carriers of the ε4 allele. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 306 Evidence: low

The American Heart Association's LS7 score identified individuals who were vulnerable to multiple chronic nonvascular conditions. 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,506 Evidence: low

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is driven by vascular Aβ (amyloid-beta) deposition, which can be detected as reduced Aβ species in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 31 Evidence: low

A total of 406 FHS (Framingham Heart Study) and 59 BHS (Bogalusa Heart Study) participants with traditional neuropsychological tests and digital assessments using the Defense Automated Neurocognitive Assessment (DANA) smartphone protocol were included. 5 key findings →

Participants: 406 Evidence: low

A total of 124 participants with Alzheimer disease, cerebrovascular disease, or a mix Alzheimer's and cerebrovascular diseases and 55 controlparticipants underwent magnetic resonance imaging and neuropsychological testing. 5 key findings →

Participants: 124 Evidence: low

Patients with CLTI undergoing peripheral vascular intervention from 2017 to 2018 were derived from the Medicare-linked VQI (Vascular Quality Initiative) registry. 5 key findings →

Participants: 114 Evidence: moderate

The study included 25 patients with iCAA (age, 44±11 years), 31 patients with sCAA (age, 75±5 years), 28 patients with AD (age, 71±8 years) and 30 controls (age, 72±8 years) from 9 case descriptions and 1 cohort study. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

Stroke interacts with APOE ε4 to influence dementia, with the association being more pronounced in APOE ε4 non‐carriers. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 336 Evidence: moderate

Elevated CKM risk level is significantly associated with increased risks of cognitive decline and dementia incidence. 3 key findings →

Participants: 426 Evidence: low

This raises the suggestion that a decreased neurovascular coupling in the disease process of AD is related to comorbid small vessel disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 119 Evidence: moderate

Among 1154 participants (46% men, mean age 70.9±8.7 years), 92 (8%) developed stroke over a median follow-up of 8.6 years (Q1-Q3: 5.1-12.5). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,154 Evidence: moderate

We used cross-sectional data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from 1999 to 2018 linked to National Death Index records. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a heterogeneous small vessel disease that can occur independently or alongside Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

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