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 976–1,000 of 1,229 studies in Neurology (page 40 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.

Objective subtle cognitive difficulties predict future amyloid accumulation and neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2019-12-30

Relative to CN participants, Obj-SCD was associated with faster amyloid accumulation and selective vulnerability of entorhinal cortical thinning, whereas MCI was associated with faster entorhinal and hippocampal atrophy. 5 key findings →

Participants: 747 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Clinical trial of indomethacin in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 1993-08-01

In a 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 100 to 150 mg/d indomethacin appeared to protect mild to moderately impaired Alzheimer's disease patients from the degree of cognitive decline exhibited by a well-matched, placebo-treated group. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Aducanumab 36-month data from PRIME: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 1b study in patients with prodromal or mild Alzheimer’s disease (S2.004)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Neurology 2018-04-10

In patients treated up to 36 months, amyloid plaque levels continued to decrease in a dose- and time-dependent manner, with levels in the 10 mg/kg fixed-dose group reaching and remaining below a quantitative cut-point discriminating a positive/negative scan. 1 Reduced amyloid plaque levels were also observed in patients switched from placebo to aducanumab during the LTE. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Altered brain white matter integrity in healthy carriers of the APOE epsilon4 allele: a risk for AD?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2006-04-01

Although the mechanism underlying vulnerability of white matter tracts in APOE epsilon4 carriers is still unknown, these findings suggest that increased genetic risk for developing Alzheimer disease is associated with changes in microscopic white matter integrity well before the onset of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

APOE ε4 worsens hippocampal CA1 apical neuropil atrophy and episodic memory

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2014-01-22

The APOE ε4 allele segregated dose-dependently and selectively with CA1-SRLM thinning and worse episodic memory performance in a pool of older subjects across a cognitive spectrum. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Short-term clinical outcomes for stages of NIA-AA preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2012-05-02

Of the 296 initially normal subjects, 31 (10%) progressed to a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia (27 amnestic MCI, 2 nonamnestic MCI, and 2 non-AD dementias) within 1 year. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Low PiB PET retention in presence of pathologic CSF biomarkers in Arctic APP mutation carriers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2012-06-13

The lack of fibrillar β-amyloid (Aβ) as visualized by PiB PET in APParc mutation carriers suggests, given the reduced glucose metabolism and levels of Aβ(1-42) in CSF, that other forms of Aβ such as oligomers and protofibrils are important for the pathologic processes leading to clinical Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

In vivo amyloid imaging in autopsy-confirmed Parkinson disease with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2010-01-01

[(11)C]-Pittsburgh Compound B (PIB) PET is specific for fibrillar Abeta molecular pathology but not for pathologic diagnosis of comorbid Alzheimer disease in individuals with Parkinson disease dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Gray matter atrophy in Parkinson disease with dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2007-08-01

We found that despite a similar severity of dementia, patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) had more cortical atrophy than patients with Parkinson disease with dementia (PDD), indicating different brain substrates underlying dementia in the two syndromes. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

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

Impact of white matter hyperintensity volume progression on rate of cognitive and motor decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2008-07-01

Increased total and periventricular (PV) white matter hyperintensity (WMH) burden and progression of PV WMH burden are associated with decreased gait performance over time, while progression of subcortical WMH volume is associated with memory decline in cognitively intact elderly. 5 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 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