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 601–625 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 25 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.

Symptomatic females with genetic FTD had lower frontal cortical thickness than males, and the C9orf72 subgroup showed lower-than-expected frontal cortical thickness for a given level of executive functioning. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 394 Evidence: moderate

Self- and Informant-Report Cognitive Decline Discordance and Mild Cognitive Impairment Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-04-18

ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 921 Evidence: moderate

A decreasing linear trend was observed between higher levels of curry consumption and cognitive decline (p = 0.037). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,920 Evidence: moderate

Outdoor activity is linked to lower dementia risk, particularly in those living in more accessible GS. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 187,724 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive Decline and Dementia in Chronic Widespread Pain: A Longitudinal Population-based Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Anesthesiology 2025-08-25

This study analyzed 13 yr of follow-up data from 188,594 participants to assess the relationship between CWP and cognitive outcomes, while exploring the mediating effects of brain structure and systemic inflammation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 500,000 Evidence: moderate

Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, represent a growing global health crisis, yet current treatment strategies remain primarily palliative. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

After the intervention, the CG showed significantly lower scores compared to all experimental groups. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 92 Evidence: high

Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is recognized as a major vascular contributor to cognitive decline, ultimately leading to dementia and stroke. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the linear regression results. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 832 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular Risk Trajectories and Risk of Developing Stroke and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2025-09-30

Among 2,335 participants (mean age 52.3 ± 11.2 years; 56.6% women), CVD risk trajectories over 10 years were classified as accelerated increase (29.2%), moderate increase (30.9%), or stable (39.9%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,335 Evidence: moderate

Lecanemab was approved for early Alzheimer's disease in Japan, with ≈ 6000 patients treated in the first year post approval. 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,000 Evidence: low

The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Central nervous system (CNS)-active medication use is common in older adults; however, there are limited data on utilization trends over time, differences in utilization amongst those with and without dementia, and modification of utilization surrounding dementia diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 444,587 Evidence: moderate

The potential neuroprotective effects of antidiabetic treatments have been largely assessed in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-like dementia models, with or without metabolic disorders. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 405 Evidence: low

Generational Differences in Age-Specific Dementia Prevalence Rates

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-06-02

In this cross-sectional study examining generational differences in age-specific dementia prevalence across the US, Europe, and England, we found that individuals from more recent birth cohorts had lower proportions of people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 62,437 Evidence: moderate

CMS was likely cost-effective from the payer but not from a societal perspective, underlining the importance of informal care. 3 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate

The Evolution of Randomized Clinical Trial Designs to Assess Therapeutics in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-08-01

A substantial difference in the type of therapeutics researched was observed, with anti-amyloid and anti-tau RCTs being more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry compared with neurotransmitter or other RCTs (anti-amyloid or anti-tau, 68 of 71 [95.8%]; neurotransmitter, 52 of 69 [77.6%]; other, 33 of 52 [63.5%]). 2 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

Almost all individuals with Down Syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer's disease (AD) by mid to late life. 3 key findings →

Participants: 229 Evidence: moderate

Depression is a known risk factor for dementia and MCI, but its associations with AT(N) biomarkers remain inconsistent and may differ by cognitive status. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,929 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