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 351–375 of 1,229 studies in Neurology (page 15 of 50) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

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.

Resting bold fMRI differentiates dementia with Lewy bodies vs Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2011-04-27

Changes in functional connectivity in DLB indicate patterns of activation that are distinct from those seen in AD and may improve discrimination of DLB from AD and cognitively normal individuals. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 88 Evidence: moderate

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

Contribution of TDP and hippocampal sclerosis to hippocampal volume loss in older-old persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2019-11-22

Both AD and TDP/HS contribute to hippocampal volume loss in older-old persons, with TDP/HS more strongly associated with hippocampal volume than AD in Alzheimer dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 232 Evidence: moderate

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

Influence of leisure activity on the incidence of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2001-12-01

The data suggest that engagement in leisure activities may reduce the risk of incident dementia, possibly by providing a reserve that delays the onset of clinical manifestations of the disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,772 Evidence: moderate

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

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a consensus on clinical diagnostic criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 1998-12-01

The criteria ought to provide the foundation for research work into the neuropsychology, neuropathology, genetics, molecular biology, and epidemiology of these important clinical disorders that account for a substantial proportion of cases of primary degenerative dementia occurring before the age of 65 years. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Restriction in complex activities of daily living in MCI: impact on outcome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2006-08-01

Inclusion of instrumental activities of daily living restriction in the criteria of mild cognitive impairment improves the prediction of dementia and the stability of this status over time. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,517 Evidence: moderate

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

Predicting Driving Cessation Among Cognitively Normal Older Drivers: The Role of Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Clinical Assessments

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2024-04-15

With the aging US population and increasing incidence of Alzheimer disease (AD), understanding factors contributing to driving cessation among older adults is crucial for clinicians. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 283 Evidence: moderate

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

Association of Nonmodifiable Risk Factors With Alzheimer Disease Blood Biomarkers in Community-Dwelling Adults in the ESTHER Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2025-04-16

Dementia-related blood biomarkers are the future of large-scale dementia risk stratification; however, the extent to which phosphorylated tau (P-tau181), neurofilament light (NfL), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are associated with nonmodifiable risk factors has yet to be confirmed in the community, and the role of menopause has yet to be investigated. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,940 Evidence: moderate

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

Dietary fatty acids and the risk of Parkinson disease: the Rotterdam study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2005-06-01

Unsaturated fatty acids are important constituents of neuronal cell membranes and have neuroprotective, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,289 Evidence: moderate

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

Association of orthostatic hypotension with incident dementia, stroke, and cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2018-07-25

We analyzed data from 11,709 participants without a history of coronary heart disease or stroke who attended the baseline examination (1987-1989) of the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. 4 key findings →

Participants: 11,709 Evidence: moderate

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

Montreal Cognitive Assessment vs the Mini-Mental State Examination as a Screening Tool for Patients With Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2025-02-14

< 0.001] total scores differed significantly between groups, with controls (median MoCA 28.5, 95% CI 28.0-29.0; median MMSE 30, 95% CI 30.0-30.0) outperforming prodromal (median MoCA 26, 95% CI 23.0-27.0; median MMSE 29, 95% CI 27.5-29.5) and symptomatic (median MoCA 20.5, 95% CI 17.0-24.0; median MMSE 26, 95% CI 23.5-29.0) carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Automated Speech Analysis to Differentiate Frontal and Right Anterior Temporal Lobe Atrophy in Frontotemporal Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2025-04-10

We evaluated 62 Automated speech analysis demonstrated high accuracy in differentiating FTD subtypes and provided insights into the neural basis of language impairments. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate

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