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 3,426–3,450 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 138 of 1086) · 28,180 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.

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.

Metabolic Syndrome and Amyloid Accumulation in the Aging Brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2018

A total of 165 cognitively normal participants of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) Neuroimaging substudy, aged 55-92 years (mean baseline age = 76.4 years, 85 participants were male), received an average of 2.5 PET-PiB scans over an average interval of 2.6 (3.08 SD) years between first and last visits. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 165 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive reserve and cortical thickness in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Brain imaging and behavior 2017-04

This study examined whether cognitive reserve (CR) alters the relationship between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of cortical thickness and risk of progression from normal cognition to the onset of clinical symptoms associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 232 Evidence: moderate

In the incident depression group, there was a mild decline in cognitive scores from baseline to the visit before depression onset compared with the never-depressed group. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

Both objective and perceived social isolations were associated with future cognitive decline and increase risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 23 Evidence: moderate

Network models of late life depression symptoms and cognitive impairments across time

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Aging & mental health 2025-02-02

Across 3544 participants, ≥65 years of age, with no diagnosed dementia-related disorders, the depression symptom everything was an effort showed high expected influence across all time points. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,544 Evidence: moderate

Low MoCA performances correlate with suicidal ideation in late-life depression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Psychiatry research 2021-04-22

Late-life depression remains an underdiagnosed clinical entity, mainly because the presence of cognitive impairment in the elderly leads clinicians to suspect dementia rather than depression. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 72 Evidence: moderate

Air Pollution Is Associated with Cognitive Deterioration of Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Gerontology 2021-04-21

The PSI was higher in Kaohsiung and compared with Pingtung patients, Kaohsiung patients were exposed to higher average annual concentrations of CO, NO2, PM10, and SO2. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 704 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease pathology (Aβ plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and cerebral amyloid angiopathy) was significantly higher in the dMCI group than the sMCI group. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

TDP-43-associated atrophy in brains with and without frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2022-02-04

Transactive response DNA-binding protein of ∼43 kDa (TDP-43), a primary pathologic substrate in tau-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), is also often found in the brains of elderly individuals without FTLD and is a key player in the process of neurodegeneration in brains with and without FTLD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate

Neurodegenerative pathologies such as Alzheimer disease neuropathologic change (ADNC), Lewy body disease (LBD), limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC), and cerebrovascular disease (CVD) frequently coexist, but little is known about the exact contribution of each pathology to cognitive decline and dementia in subjects with mixed pathologies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 6,262 Evidence: moderate

Two distinct literacy profiles emerged. The first group (N=121, 44%) had higher level of literacy at baseline, slower decline and less variabilities over time. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 121 Evidence: moderate

This study examined the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on healthcare utilization among older adults with normal cognition and impaired cognition/dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,698 Evidence: low

Successful discharge of beneficiaries with ADRD increased from 43.4% in 2007 to 53.9% in 2015 (average annual percent change (AAPC) = 2.1 (95% CI = 2.0-2.2)); those without ADRD also increased (from 59.1% to 63.6%, AAPC = 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7-1.1)) but not as fast as those with ADRD (P < .01). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,043 Evidence: low

53.0% of the participants were in the group of possible mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 117 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is pathologically characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, neurofibrillary tangles and widespread neuronal loss in the brain. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

Cohort Profile Update: The Lothian Birth Cohorts of 1921 and 1936

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. International Journal of Epidemiology 2018-01-29

By wave, compared with those who remained in the LBC1921 study at Waves 1 to 5, participants who dropped out had: significantly lower older-age IQ scores at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = lower scores at Waves and at Waves 1 = and 2 = By wave, compared with those who remained in the LBC1936 study at Waves 1 to participants who dropped out had: significantly lower older-age IQ scores at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = lower scores at Wave 1 = Wave 2 and Wave 3 = lower at Wave 1 = Wave 2 = and Wave 3 and lower physical as at Wave 1 Wave 2 = and Wave 3 = and at Wave 1 = at each wave in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921 are mean and standard for and for each wave sample = Wave 1 = Waves 1 and 2 = Waves 2 and 3 = Waves IQ from Moray House Test for age in at time of testing and to IQ is the was from to from the in 1 and at Wave 1. as of from the Wave 2 two participants who not Wave 1. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 87 Evidence: moderate

Donanemab treatment significantly slowed clinical progression at 76w and had a safety profile consistent with earlier studies. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,182 Evidence: high

↑ 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