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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 3,851–3,875 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 155 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.

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.

Prevalence of dementia in the United States: the aging, demographics, and memory study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2007-10-29

Dementia prevalence estimates from this first nationally representative population-based study of dementia in the USA to include subjects from all regions of the country can provide essential information for effective planning for the impending healthcare needs of the large and increasing number of individuals at risk for dementia as our population ages. 1 key finding →

Participants: 856 Evidence: low

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

Altered microbiomes distinguish Alzheimer's disease from amnestic mild cognitive impairment and health in a Chinese cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Brain, behavior, and immunity 2019-05-04

Recently, several animal studies indicated that the 'gut-brain' axis might contribute to the amyloid deposition of AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: low

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

A biological definition of neuronal α-synuclein disease: towards an integrated staging system for research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2024-02-01

Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies are currently defined by their clinical features, with α-synuclein pathology as the gold standard to establish the definitive diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Quantifying the risk of neurodegenerative disease in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2008-12-24

Although we have found a slightly lower risk than other reports, the risk of developing neurodegenerative disease in idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder is substantial, with the majority of patients developing Parkinson disease and Lewy body dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 113 Evidence: low

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

Altered lysosomal proteins in neural-derived plasma exosomes in preclinical Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2015-06-10

Levels of autolysosomal proteins in neurally derived blood exosomes distinguish patients with AD from case controls and appear to reflect the pathology of AD up to 10 years before clinical onset. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26 Evidence: low

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

Higher risk of progression to dementia in mild cognitive impairment cases who revert to normal

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2013-12-18

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 153 of 534 participants (28.7%) with prevalent or incident MCI progressed to dementia (71.3 per 1,000 person-years). 2 key findings →

Participants: 534 Evidence: moderate

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

Depressed mood and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease in the elderly living in the community

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Archives of general psychiatry 1996-02-01

In the 852 subjects without dementia, depressed mood was more common in individuals with greater cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,070 Evidence: moderate

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

High cerebrospinal fluid tau and low amyloid beta42 levels in the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and relation to apolipoprotein E genotype

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1998-07-01

Levels of CSF Abeta42 decrease and levels of CSF tau increase in AD. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74 Evidence: moderate

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

Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2013-11-01

Brief instruments to screen for cognitive impairment can adequately detect dementia, but there is no empirical evidence that screening improves decision making. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Association between hypoglycemia and dementia in a biracial cohort of older adults with diabetes mellitus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2013-07-01

During the 12-year follow-up period, 61 participants (7.8%) had a reported hypoglycemic event, and 148 (18.9%) developed dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 783 Evidence: moderate

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

Resting bold fMRI differentiates dementia with Lewy bodies vs Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2011-04-27

Changes in functional connectivity in DLB indicate patterns of activation that are distinct from those seen in AD and may improve discrimination of DLB from AD and cognitively normal individuals. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 88 Evidence: moderate

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 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