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

30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 3,026–3,050 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 122 of 692) · 30,580 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; 16,054 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.

Digital cognitive phenotyping enhances risk stratification in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-09-01

Four cognitive phenotypes emerged. One phenotype (18% of Aβ+ participants) showed the steepest cognitive decline, highest progression on the CDR, greater baseline medial temporal tau, and fastest neocortical tau accumulation over 4.6 years (hazard ratio [HR] for decline ≈ 2.9). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Achievements, Gaps, and Future Directions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 2025-02-01

Bringing together global efforts to enhance the implementation of warnings in managing vulnerabilities, hazards, risks, and disasters is essential to saving lives and for long-term vulnerability reduction. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Epidemiology of oral health in older adults aged 65 or over: prevalence, risk factors and prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2025-06-23

Oral diseases have emerged as one of the most prevalent non-communicable diseases (NCDs) worldwide, with a high global average prevalence of 45%, affecting an estimated 3.5 billion people globally. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Association between air pollution and lifestyle with the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment and dementia in individuals with cardiometabolic diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-01-15

Lifestyle factors and ambient air pollution are linked to dementia and CMDs, yet few studies have investigated their impact on dementia risk in CMDs patients at the same time. 1 key finding →

Participants: 438,681 Evidence: low

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

Gender Diversity and Environmental, Social, and Governance: Unlocking Solutions to Corporate Risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Business Strategy & Development 2025-03-01

The findings indicate that stronger ESG practices significantly reduce corporate risk, enhance financial stability, and mitigate regulatory and market volatility exposure. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Gut microbiota and associated metabolites: key players in high-fat diet-induced chronic diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Gut Microbes 2025-04-22

Excessive intake of dietary fats is strongly associated with an increased risk of various chronic diseases, such as obesity, diabetes, hepatic metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease, chronic intestinal inflammation, and certain cancers. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Recommended best practices for construct-centered adaptation of the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2025-10-24

Recommendations for HCAP adaptation include phases of preparation (assembling local expert teams; resource planning), implementation (construct-centered adaptation guided by local experts), pre-testing (iterative, mixed-methods approach), and field preparation (creating documentation; interviewer training; planning for ongoing quality assurance). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Reliability and Validity of Self‐Reported Risk Factors for Stroke and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of the American Heart Association 2025-03-21

We used cross-sectional data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from 1999 to 2018 linked to National Death Index records. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Autism, Diagnostics, and Dementia: A Consensus Report From the 2nd International Summit on Intellectual Disabilities and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2025-06-01

Diagnostic challenges stem from overlapping symptoms of co-occurring neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, rendering standard dementia tools insufficient. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Performance of the Brain Health Test-7, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment for detecting subjects with mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. International Psychogeriatrics 2025-04-01

The three cognitive assessment tools were valid for detecting subjects with MCI or dementia according to ROC analysis. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,090 Evidence: low

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

Assessing Cognition Remotely: Expanding the Reach of Cognitive Testing for Older Adults at Risk for Dementia in a Randomized Controlled Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Canadian Geriatrics Journal 2025-03-05

Little is known about whether cognitive assessments can be completed remotely by older adults at risk for dementia, and there is no consensus on which tool is best. 1 key finding →

Participants: 52 Evidence: high

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

Loneliness trajectories and dementia risk: Insights from the HUNT cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring 2025-07-01

In the fully adjusted model, the odds ratio (OR) for persistent loneliness was 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 1.95). 5 key findings →

Participants: 9,389 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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    Where this research is being discussed: events