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 1–15 of 15 studies in Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences · 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.

Disturbing dreams and dementia incidence across diverse cohort studies: A COSMIC collaboration study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2026-03-17

Disturbing dreams were reported by 24.2% overall and all-cause dementia, and AD incidence was 10.8 and 5.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 10,238 Evidence: moderate

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

Sodium benzoate, a D-amino acid oxidase inhibitor, improved short-term memory in patients with mild cognitive impairment in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2025-05-23

With the moderate sample size of the current study, treatment using sodium benzoate, a DAO inhibitor, showed promise in improving cognition, especially short-term memory, in patients with aMCI. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

Structural and metabolic topological alterations associated with butylphthalide treatment in mild cognitive impairment: Data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2025-03-31

Butylphthalide may restore abnormal organization in structural networks of patients with MCI due to AD, and baseline network metrics could be predictive markers for therapeutic efficacy of butylphthalide. 4 key findings →

Participants: 270 Evidence: low

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

Plasma biomarkers for predicting the development of dementia in a community-dwelling older Japanese population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2024-04-12

During the follow-up, 151 participants developed dementia, of whom 108 had Alzheimer disease (AD) and 43 non-Alzheimer dementia (non-AD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 151 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Neuropsychiatric symptoms and neuroimaging‐based brain age in mild cognitive impairment and early dementia: A multicenter study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2025-01-17

All groups showed significantly increased brain-PAD, and the median (IQR) brain-PAD was 4.3 (5.4) years in MCI, 6.3 (6.2) years in AD, and 5.0 (6.5) years in DLB. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 185 Evidence: low

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

Prevalence of Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies in a Japanese population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2001-02-01

We studied the prevalence of dementing disorders in a rural town of Japan (Amino-cho), using a door-to-door two-phase design. 2 key findings →

Participants: 170 Evidence: low

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

Estimation of premorbid IQ in individuals with Alzheimer's disease using Japanese ideographic script (Kanji) compound words: Japanese version of National Adult Reading Test

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2006-06-01

The National Adult Reading Test (NART) is widely used as a measure of premorbid IQ of the English-speaking patients with dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Validation of the neuropathological criteria of the fourth Consortium on dementia with Lewy Bodies in autopsy cases from psychiatric hospitals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2025-03-31

Sixteen of 30 cases with DLB pathology had no parkinsonism, which represented diverse nigral neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Neuroticism, conscientiousness, and in vivo Alzheimer pathologies measured by amyloid PET and MRI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2020-02-23

The present findings suggest that amyloid-independent regional neurodegeneration might underlie relations of neuroticism and conscientiousness with AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 397 Evidence: low

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

Effects of bright light on cognitive and sleep-wake (circadian) rhythm disturbances in Alzheimer-type dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 2000-06-01

Twenty-seven patients with Alzheimer-type dementia (ATD) were treated with bright light therapy in the morning for four consecutive weeks. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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