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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 276–300 of 1,229 studies in Neurology (page 12 of 50) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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; 12,859 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.

Hippocampal and entorhinal atrophy in mild cognitive impairment: prediction of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2007-03-01

Hippocampal and entorhinal cortex volumes were each largest in controls, intermediate in MCI nonconverters, and smallest in MCI converters to AD (37 of 139 patients converted to AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 139 Evidence: low

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

Amyloid imaging and CSF biomarkers in predicting cognitive impairment up to 7.5 years later

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2013-04-10

Abnormal levels of all biomarkers were associated with faster time to cognitive impairment, and some participants with abnormal biomarker levels remained cognitively normal for up to 6.6 years. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 201 Evidence: moderate

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

A Phase II study targeting amyloid-beta with 3APS in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2006-11-02

As a potential disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer disease (AD), 3-amino-1-propanesulfonic acid (3APS) is a compound that binds to amyloid beta (Abeta), a toxic protein known to aggregate, leading to amyloid plaque deposition in the brain. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high

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

CSF Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers: Time-Varying Relationships With MCI Symptom Onset and Associations With Age, Sex, and ApoE4

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2022-10-01

This study aimed to examine whether baseline CSF measures of Alzheimer disease (AD)-related pathology are associated with the time to onset of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and whether these associations differ by age, sex, Apolipoprotein E ( ApoE4 ) status, and proximal (≤7 years) vs distal (>7 years) time to symptom onset. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 273 Evidence: moderate

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

Effect of smoking on global cognitive function in nondemented elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2004-03-01

Contrary to early case-control studies that suggested smoking protects against Alzheimer disease (AD), recent prospective studies have shown that elderly who smoke may be at increased risk for dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 17,610 Evidence: moderate

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

Efficacy of flupirtine on cognitive function in patients with CJD: A double-blind study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2004-03-01

In cell culture experiments, flupirtine maleate (FLU), a triaminopyridine compound, was able to protect neuronal cells from apoptotic cell death induced by prion protein fragments and beta-amyloid peptides. 4 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: high

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

Five-Year Changes in 24-Hour Sleep-Wake Activity and Dementia Risk in Oldest Old Women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2025-03-19

Of 733 participants (mean age 82.5 ± 2.9 years), 164 (22.4%) developed MCI and 93 (12.7%) developed dementia by the follow-up visit. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 321 Evidence: moderate

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

Neuropathology of older persons without cognitive impairment from two community-based studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2006-06-26

Two (1.5%) persons met NIA-Reagan criteria for high likelihood AD, and 48 (35.8%) met criteria for intermediate likelihood; 29 (21.6%) had cerebral infarctions, and 18 (13.4%) had Lewy bodies. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,000 Evidence: low

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

Genetic Variation in Targets of Antidiabetic Drugs and Alzheimer Disease Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2022-06-02

Genetic variation in sulfonylurea targets was associated with a lower risk of AD, and future studies are warranted to clarify the underlying mechanistic pathways between sulfonylureas and AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 326,885 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Diagnostic Performance of the α-Synuclein Seed Amplification Assay for Dementia With Lewy Bodies: A Comparison Across 4 Laboratories

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2026-01-28

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

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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