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

30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 3,501–3,525 of 16,956 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 141 of 679) · 30,180 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 15,654 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.

Automated 3D mapping of baseline and 12-month associations between three verbal memory measures and hippocampal atrophy in 490 ADNI subjects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. NeuroImage 2010-01-18

We used a previously validated automated machine learning algorithm based on adaptive boosting to segment the hippocampi in baseline and 12-month follow-up 3D T1-weighted brain MRIs of 150 cognitively normal elderly (NC), 245 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 97 Dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT) ADNI subjects. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Can progressive and non-progressive behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia be distinguished at presentation?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2009-02-18

Progressive and non-progressive patients are difficult to differentiate on the basis of current clinical diagnostic criteria for FTD but a combination of general cognitive, executive dysfunction and impaired ADL measures appear to be the most promising discriminators. 2 key findings →

Participants: 71 Evidence: low

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

Language functions in Huntington's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 1988-12-01

A comprehensive language test battery (Aachen Aphasia Test) was administered to 45 patients in the early, middle or later stages of Huntington's disease (HD) and to 20 control subjects. 3 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

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

Primary Progressive Aphasias and Apraxia of Speech

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) 2019-02-01

This article reviews two of the primary progressive aphasias (PPAs), disorders characterized by the early and predominant impairment of language, and primary progressive apraxia of speech, a degenerative motor speech disorder that is closely related to PPA. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Effect of a Digital Literacy Program on Older Adults' Digital Social Behavior: A Quasi-Experimental Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. International journal of environmental research and public health 2022-09-29

In South Korea, digital literacy education programs are expected to help its older population participate in online welfare services to increase their social support, self-esteem and well-being. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Machine Learning Driven Profiling of Cerebrospinal Fluid Core Biomarkers in Alzheimer's Disease and Other Neurological Disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Frontiers in neuroscience 2021-03-31

Amyloid-beta (Aβ) 42/40 ratio, tau phosphorylated at threonine-181 (p-tau), and total-tau (t-tau) are considered core biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Digital Biomarkers for the Early Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment: Artificial Intelligence Meets Virtual Reality

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Frontiers in human neuroscience 2020-07-24

Elderly people affected by Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) usually report a perceived decline in cognitive functions that deeply impacts their quality of life. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Prediction of cognitive impairment via deep learning trained with multi-center neuropsychological test data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2019-11-21

The machine learning algorithm for NPTs has suggested potential use as a reference in differentiating cognitive impairment in the clinical setting. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Personal mastery is associated with reduced sympathetic arousal in stressed Alzheimer caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 2008-04-01

Caregivers with higher mastery had less NE reactivity to the stressor task. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

Accurate Blood-Based Diagnostic Biosignatures for Alzheimer's Disease via Automated Machine Learning

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of clinical medicine 2020-09-18

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative dementia and its timely diagnosis remains a major challenge in biomarker discovery. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

CSF complement 3 and factor H are staging biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica communications 2016-02-17

We developed a biochemical/bioinformatics pipeline to optimize the handling of complex interactions between variables in validating biochemical markers of disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 230 Evidence: moderate

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

The suprachiasmatic nucleus of the human brain in relation to sex, age and senile dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Brain research 1985-09-01

The suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) is considered to be the endogenous clock of the brain, essential for the ovulation cycle and the temporal organization of sleep-wake patterns, among other things. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Validity of the Italian version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology 2012-04-13

The aim of this study is to validate the Italian version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), comparing five different groups of individuals (healthy young and elderly, sleep apnoea syndrome patients, depressed patients, individuals with dementia) by both questionnaire scores and polysomnographic measures. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

MELAS syndrome: Clinical manifestations, pathogenesis, and treatment options

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Molecular genetics and metabolism 2015-06-15

Mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and stroke-like episodes (MELAS) syndrome is one of the most frequent maternally inherited mitochondrial disorders. 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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