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.

Find studies

Showing 151–175 of 227 studies in The Lancet Neurology (page 7 of 10) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 227 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

This list as a page: The Lancet Neurology in the library →

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

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.

20 (45%) patients developed a neurological disorder after a mean of 11.5 years from the reported onset of RBD and a mean follow-up of 5.1 years from the diagnosis of idiopathic RBD at our sleep centre. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Functional network disruption in the degenerative dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2011-07-21

Despite advances towards understanding the molecular pathophysiology of the neurodegenerative dementias, the mechanisms linking molecular changes to neuropathology and neuropathological changes to clinical symptoms remain largely obscure. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Dementia is one of the most common and important aspects of Parkinson's disease and has consequences for patients and caregivers, and has health-related costs. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The text describes cerebral small vessel disease as a group of pathological processes affecting the brain's small vessels, with age-related and hypertension-related forms and cerebral amyloid angiopathy being most common. 3 key findings →

Compared with typical AD, hippocampal-sparing AD has more neurofibrillary tangles in the cortex and fewer in the hippocampus, whereas the opposite pattern is seen in limbic-predominant AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The role of TREM2 in Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2018-07-17

Alzheimer's disease is a genetically complex disorder; rare variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) gene have been shown to as much as triple an individual's risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The A(+)N(-) and A(+)N(+) groups had significantly faster cognitive decline than the A(-)N(-) group (0·08 SD per year for AIBL-Preclinical AD Cognitive Composite [PACC]; p Interpretation Brain amyloidosis, a surrogate marker of Alzheimer's disease pathology, is a risk factor for cognitive decline and for progression from preclinical stages to symptomatic stages of the disease, with neurodegeneration acting as a compounding factor. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The prognosis of dementia with Lewy bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2017-03-22

Dementia with Lewy bodies is the second most common form of neurodegenerative dementia, yet scarce evidence is available about its prognosis and natural history, which are crucial to inform clinical practice and research. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Music-based interventions in neurological rehabilitation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2017-06-26

During the past ten years, an increasing number of controlled studies have assessed the potential rehabilitative effects of music-based interventions, such as music listening, singing, or playing an instrument, in several neurological diseases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive function in patients with diabetes mellitus: guidance for daily care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2015-02-16

Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increase in the risk of dementia and the proportion of patients who convert from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increased awareness of cognitive and behavioural change in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has been driven by various clinic-based and population-based studies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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