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 601–625 of 1,229 studies in Neurology (page 25 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.

Subjective cognitive failures and hippocampal volume in elderly with white matter lesions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2008-10-01

Subjective cognitive failures (SCF) are associated with lower hippocampal volume, even in subjects without objective cognitive impairment and independent of white matter lesions. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 503 Evidence: moderate

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

Prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias in rural India: the Indo-US study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1998-10-01

In this population, the prevalence of AD and other dementias was low, increased with age, and was not associated with gender or literacy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,126 Evidence: moderate

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

Preclinical AD predicts decline in memory and executive functions in subjective complaints

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2013-09-18

We assessed whether preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD) based on CSF biomarkers at baseline predicts decline in cognitive functioning as measured by repeated neuropsychological tests for 4 cognitive domains in patients with subjective complaints. 4 key findings →

Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

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

Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability and CSF Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers in Cognitively Unimpaired and Mildly Impaired Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2022-04-13

Blood pressure variability is an emerging risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, but mechanisms remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Motor signs predict poor outcomes in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2005-05-01

A total of 533 patients with AD at early stages (mean Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 21/30 at entry) were recruited and followed semiannually for up to 13.1 years (mean 3) in five University-based AD centers in the United States and European Union. 4 key findings →

Participants: 533 Evidence: moderate

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

Glucose indices are associated with cognitive and structural brain measures in young adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2015-05-06

The sample included dementia-free participants (mean age 40 ± 9 years; 53% women) of the Framingham Heart Study third-generation cohort with cognitive testing of memory, abstract reasoning, visual perception, attention, and executive function (n = 2,126). 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,126 Evidence: moderate

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

Cardiovascular risk factors and cerebral atrophy in a middle-aged cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2005-09-01

Because cardiovascular (CV) risk factors have been associated with declines in cognitive functions and late life dementia, CV risk factors should also be associated with brain atrophy. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,812 Evidence: moderate

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

Income, Race-Ethnicity, and Dementia Risk Factors in the United States

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2025-11-12

There were 13,145 individuals with risk factor data between 2015 and 2018 (51.1% aged 18-44, 31.0% aged 45-64, and 17.9% aged ≥65 years; 51.5% female after survey-weighting). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13,145 Evidence: low

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

Characterizing Individuals Fulfilling Clinical Criteria for Limbic-Predominant Age-Related TDP-43 Encephalopathy in a Tertiary Memory Clinic

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2026-04-16

< 0.01). Using an operationalization of clinical criteria for LATE, 8.2% of participants with MCI or dementia from our tertiary memory clinic were classified as Possible-LATE, Probable-LATE, or LATE-AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Clinical research criteria for the diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy (Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome): report of the NINDS-SPSP international workshop

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 1996-07-01

To improve the specificity and sensitivity of the clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP, Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the Society for PSP, Inc. (SPSP) sponsored an international workshop to develop an accurate and universally accepted set of criteria for this disorder.

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