alzhub.org
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.

Research

30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–50 of 89 studies in Lancet (London, England) (page 2 of 4) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 89 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

This list as a page: The Lancet in the library →

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Effect of dimebon on cognition, activities of daily living, behaviour, and global function in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2008-07-01

155 (85%) patients completed the trial (78 [88%] in dimebon group, 77 [82%] in placebo group). 5 key findings →

Participants: 89 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Contribution of chronic diseases to disability in elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes: a 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2009-11-01

When zero inflation was taken into account, between-site differences in disability scores were largely attributable to compositional differences in health and sociodemographic characteristics. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD2000): randomised double-blind trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2004-06-01

Cognition averaged 0.8 MMSE (mini-mental state examination) points better (95% CI 0.5-1.2; p<0.0001) and functionality 1.0 BADLS points better (0.5-1.6; p<0.0001) with donepezil over the first 2 years. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Smoking and risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease in a population-based cohort study: the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 1998-06-01

During mean follow-up of 2.1 (range 1.5-3.4) years, 146 incident cases of dementia were detected, of which 105 were Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 6,870 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Relation between age-related decline in intelligence and cerebral white-matter hyperintensities in healthy octogenarians: a longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2000-08-01

Scores for periventricular hyperintensities in this sample included all possible degrees of severity, but no participant scored more than 75% of maximum for deep white-matter hyperintensities. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 698 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Sertraline or mirtazapine for depression in dementia (HTA-SADD): a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2011-07-19

Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. 3 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Pathological correlates of late-onset dementia in a multicentre, community-based population in England and Wales. Neuropathology Group of the Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study (MRC CFAS)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2001-01-01

We have undertaken a large unselected, community-based neuropathology study in an elderly (70-103 years) UK population in relation to prospectively evaluated dementia status. 4 key findings →

Participants: 209 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Influence of social network on occurrence of dementia: a community-based longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2000-04-01

Those individuals living alone, and those without any close social ties, both had an adjusted relative risk for developing dementia of 1.5 (95% CI 1.0-2.1 and 1.0-2.4, respectively). 2 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Atherosclerosis, apolipoprotein E, and prevalence of dementia and Alzheimer's disease in the Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 1997-01-01

All indicators of atherosclerosis were associated with dementia (odds ratios ranging from 1.3 to 1.9) and its major subtypes Alzheimer's disease (odds ratios 1.3-1.8) and vascular dementia (odds ratios 1.9-3.2). 4 key findings →

Participants: 284 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

In-vivo measurement of activated microglia in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2001-08-01

The transition of microglia from the normal resting state to the activated state is associated with an increased expression of receptors known as peripheral benzodiazepine binding sites, which are abundant on cells of mononuclear phagocyte lineage. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Mortality associated with Down's syndrome in the USA from 1983 to 1997: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2002-03-01

Reduced exposure to environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk, tumour-suppressor genes on chromosome 21, or a slower rate of replication or higher likelihood of apoptosis in Down's syndrome cells, could be possible reasons for paucity of cancer in people with Down's syndrome. 4 key findings →

Participants: 17,897 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Medical, surgical, and physical treatments for Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2024-01-01

Although dopamine replacement therapy remains a core component of Parkinson's disease treatment, the onset of motor fluctuations and dyskinetic movements might require a range of medical and surgical approaches from a multidisciplinary team, and important new approaches in the delivery of dopamine replacement are becoming available. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events