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 401–425 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 17 of 153) · 27,380 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.

Improving digital technology for caregivers requires studies with larger populations and longitudinal outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: RCT Participants: 240 Evidence: early

Between October 2021 and June 2022, 53 candidates were assessed; 29 met eligibility criteria and were randomised. 5 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 29 Evidence: preliminary

Plasma GFAP and pTau biomarkers (pTau181, pTau231, pTau217) are significantly elevated in Aβ-positive individuals, with stronger Aβ–pTau associations observed in APOE ε4 carriers (CPAS: β = 0.26, p = 0.003 for pTau231; ADNI: β = 0.45, p < 0.001 for pTau181). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 806 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular Health and Biomarkers of Neurodegenerative Disease in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-03-03

These findings suggest that promoting CVH in older adults may help alleviate the burden of neurodegenerative diseases, particularly among Black adults, who are known to experience a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,018 Evidence: moderate

α-Synuclein seed amplification assays (αSAAs) can improve the diagnosis of synucleinopathies and detect α-synuclein (αSyn) copathology in vivo in clinical practice. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 337 Evidence: moderate

These include segmental colitis associated with diverticulitis, colorectal cancer, radiation proctitis, ischemic and infectious colitis, as well as NSAID-induced enterocolitis (6,7). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 123 Evidence: high

Non-specific codes were most common. Alzheimer's and vascular dementia codes showed high regional variability. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,016 Evidence: moderate

In SURMOUNT-5, treatment with tirzepatide was associated with greater predicted 10-year CVD risk reduction compared with semaglutide. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Among the 11 risk factors, educational attainment has the greatest impact on dementia risk and cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,113 Evidence: moderate

Multicomponent Exercise and Functional Fitness: Strategies for Fall Prevention in Aging Women

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Sports 2025-05-24

Aging is associated with physiological changes that increase the risk of falls, impacting functional independence and quality of life. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high

The 2,641 participants had a mean (SD) age of 74 (2.8) years at baseline; 53 % were female, 36 % were of Black race, and had a range of baseline CKM: 3 % Stage 0 (no CKM), 4 % Stage 1 (excess/dysfunctional adiposity), 26 % Stage 2 (metabolic risk factors), 24 % Stage 3 (subclinical CVD and CKD), and 43 % Stage 4 (clinical CVD and CKD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,075 Evidence: moderate

Higher structural stiffness of the carotid artery is associated with cognitive decline, whereas both structural and load‐dependent stiffness are associated with brain structural abnormalities common in Alzheimer disease‐related dementias. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,489 Evidence: moderate

Burden and care time for dementia caregivers in the LIVE@Home.Path trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-03-01

Two hundred eighty dyads were enrolled. Caregivers during the intervention period reported lower levels of RSS of 0.7 points (standard deviation [SD]: 0.8) compared to the caregivers in the control period. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The ACT group reported significantly greater improvements in stress (P=.043) and psychological QoL (P=.014) in the posttest compared to the control group. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high

Association of zinc deficiency and risk of new-onset dementia: a retrospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Frontiers in Nutrition 2025-11-04

Zinc deficiency represents an independent, modifiable risk factor for new-onset dementia with a clear dose-response relationship. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 34,249 Evidence: high

The incidence of the first episode of delirium after hip surgery in the elderly was 1.87 events per 1000 PYs. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 118,682 Evidence: moderate

Early onset hallucinations were significantly more common in pLBD than pAD (OR 0.069 [95% CI 0.012-0.397], p = 0.003) or mixed AD+LBD (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.010-0.771], p = 0.028) and there was a greater increase in the odds of hallucinations over time in pAD and AD+LBD than pLBD such that there was was no difference in the prevalence of late-onset hallucinations between pLBD, pAD or AD+LBD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 37 Evidence: moderate

The Dementia SomaSignal Test (dSST): A plasma proteomic predictor of 20‐year dementia risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

In addition to outperforming existing plasma biomarkers, the dSST predicted mid-life dementia risk over a 20-year follow-up across two independent cohorts with different ethnic backgrounds (areas under the curve [AUCs]: dSST 0.68-0.70, dSST+age 0.75-0.81). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 11,277 Evidence: moderate

BackgroundAccurate and accessible risk assessment tools are essential for effective dementia management. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,768 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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