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 576–600 of 1,229 studies in Neurology (page 24 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.

An FDG-PET–Based Machine Learning Framework to Support Neurologic Decision-Making in Alzheimer Disease and Related Disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2025-06-27

The discovery cohort contained 3,671 individuals with a mean age of 68 years and consisted of 49% reported female. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,671 Evidence: moderate

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

Early Abeta accumulation and progressive synaptic loss, gliosis, and tangle formation in AD brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2004-03-01

These data support distinct processes in the initiation and progression of AD pathology within the temporal cortex: Deposition of Abeta reaches a "ceiling" early in the disease process, whereas NFT formation, synaptic loss, and gliosis continue throughout the course of the illness. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

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

CSF neurofilament light differs in neurodegenerative diseases and predicts severity and survival

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2014-10-22

CSF NFL differs among different neurodegenerative diseases and is especially high in dementias engaging subcortical brain regions, such as VaD and mixed AD and VaD, but also in frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 478 Evidence: low

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

Association of the Informant-Reported Memory Decline With Cognitive and Brain Deterioration Through the Alzheimer Clinical Continuum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2023-04-21

Our findings suggest that the informant report is particularly relevant in patients with MCI where it strongly relates to higher amyloid-PET, indicative of impairment due to AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

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

Serum cholesterol and risk of Alzheimer disease: a community-based cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2005-10-01

The data do not support an association between serum total cholesterol or high density lipoprotein in late life and subsequent risk of dementia or Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Lecanemab Questions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2024-03-14

The recently published results of the 18-month randomized controlled trial of lecanemab, reporting the efficacy of the drug in slowing the progression of early Alzheimer disease, quickly led to approval by the FDA and widespread acceptance of lecanemab treatment. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Medial temporal atrophy on MRI in normal aging and very mild Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1997-09-01

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based volumetric measurements of medial temporal lobe (MTL) structures can discriminate between normal elderly control subjects and patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) of moderate to advanced severity. 1 key finding →

Participants: 94 Evidence: low

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

Risk of dementia in Parkinson's disease: a community-based, prospective study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2001-03-01

Forty-three patients with PD were demented at follow-up evaluation, equivalent to an incidence rate of 95.3 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 68.2 to 122.0). 2 key findings →

Participants: 171 Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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