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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 626–650 of 1,097 studies published 2023 (page 26 of 44) · 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.

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.

Donanemab exposure and efficacy relationship using modeling in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2023-06-28

The plasma p-tau217 and plasma GFAP models adequately predicted the change over time, with donanemab resulting in decreased plasma p-tau217 and plasma GFAP concentrations. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Plasma ATN(I) classification and precision pharmacology in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-04-20

Evaluating potential therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) depends on use of biomarkers for appropriate subject selection and monitoring disease progression. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Neuropathology-based APOE genetic risk score better quantifies Alzheimer's risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-02-16

The APOE-npscore explained more variance and provided a better model fit for all three CSF measures than APOE ε4-carrier status and ε4 allele count. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Memory for Semantically Related Objects Differentiates Cognitively Unimpaired Autosomal Dominant Mutation Carriers from Non-Carrier Family Members

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2023

Early cognitive changes due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) include difficulties in semantic access and working memory. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

APOE2 Exacerbates TDP-43 Related Toxicity in the Absence of Alzheimer Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2023-01-10

We found that TDP-43 overexpression induced motor function deficits, neuronal loss, and gliosis in the motor cortex, especially in APOE2 mice, with much milder or absent effects in APOE3, APOE4, or Apoe-KO mice. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

APOE and immunity: Research highlights

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-03-28

During the 4-day meeting, presenters illuminated aspects of the cross-talk between APOE and immunity, with a focus on the roles of microglia, triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2), and components of inflammation (e.g., tumor necrosis factor α [TNFα]). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Single-cell analysis reveals inflammatory interactions driving macular degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature communications 2023-05-05

Due to commonalities in pathophysiology, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) represents a uniquely accessible model to investigate therapies for neurodegenerative diseases, leading us to examine whether pathways of disease progression are shared across neurodegenerative conditions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Donanemab: Not two without a third

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University 2023-10

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 2 anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies, aducanumab (June 7, 2021) and lecanemab (July 6, 2023), for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients, and will most likely also approve a 3rd one, donanemab, soon. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Patients with geriatric syndromes and anti-amyloid therapies: lack of consideration? An exploratory analysis of the literature

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2023-10-10

Out of 538 articles, 23 (4.27%) were published in journals from the geriatric category, 44 (8.18%) included an author affiliated with a geriatric institution. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Synthesis and Bioevaluation of 2-Styrylquinoxaline Derivatives as Tau-PET Tracers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Molecular pharmaceutics 2023-10-18

This study focused on designing and evaluating Tau-PET tracers for noninvasive positron emission computed tomography (PET) imaging of neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), a hallmark pathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Ambroxol as a disease-modifying treatment to reduce the risk of cognitive impairment in GBA-associated Parkinson's disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial. The AMBITIOUS study protocol

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. BMJ neurology open 2023-11-24

GBA-related PD (GBA-PD) patients have higher risk of dementia and reduced survival than non-carriers. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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