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 1–25 of 27 studies in Neuropsychologia (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Positive effects of computer-based cognitive training in adults with mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 2012-04-21

Considering the high risk for individuals with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (A-MCI) to progress towards Alzheimer's disease (AD), we investigated the efficacy of a non-pharmacological intervention, that is, cognitive training that could reduce cognitive difficulties and delay the cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Three-dimensional surface mapping of hippocampal atrophy progression from MCI to AD and over normal aging as assessed using voxel-based morphometry

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 2008-01-16

The hippocampus is the brain structure of highest and earliest structural alteration in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Autobiographical memory and executive function in early dementia of Alzheimer type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 1995-12-01

We studied executive function and autobiographical memory in a cohort of 33 DAT patients [divided into minimal (MMSE 24-30) and mild (MMSE 17-23) groups] and in 30 normal controls. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Cholinergic-serotonergic imbalance contributes to cognitive and behavioral symptoms in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 2005-01-01

Neuropsychiatric symptoms seen in Alzheimer's disease (AD) are not simply a consequence of neurodegeneration, but probably result from differential neurotransmitter alterations, which some patients are more at risk of than others. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Using virtual reality to characterize episodic memory profiles in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: influence of active and passive encoding

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 2012-01-13

Third, we benchmarked the results of our virtual reality episodic memory test against a classical memory test and a subjective daily memory complaint scale. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

White matter integrity and reaction time intraindividual variability in healthy aging and early-stage Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 2011-12-08

Aging and early-stage Alzheimer disease (AD) have been shown to be associated with increased RT intraindividual variability (IIV, as reflected by the coefficient of variation) and an exaggeration of the slow tail of the reaction time (RT) distribution in attentional control tasks, based on ex-Gaussian analyses. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The anatomy of apathy: A neurocognitive framework for amotivated behaviour

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 2017-07-08

Apathy is a debilitating syndrome associated with many neurological disorders, including several common neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, and focal lesion syndromes such as stroke. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Subjective cognitive complaints and amyloid burden in cognitively normal older individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neuropsychologia 2012-08-23

Accumulating evidence suggests that subjective cognitive complaints (SCC) may indicate subtle cognitive decline characteristic of individuals with preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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