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 626–650 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 26 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.

< 0.001). Stage-specific tau-PET region-of-interest selection reduced required sample sizes by 30%-93% for detecting hypothetical disease-modifying drug effects. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Vaccination is increasingly acknowledged as an effective preventive measure not only against specific infections, but also for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Harmonized prevalence estimates of dementia in Europe vary strongly with childhood education

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2025-04-23

Up-to-date, strictly cross-nationally comparable and nationally representative data on cognitive health are essential for our understanding of the dementia-related challenges in healthcare, to detect shortcomings in healthcare systems and to design effective prevention strategies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 47,773 Evidence: low

Forty-three proteins were differentially regulated in FTD compared to controls and AD, reflecting axon development, regulation of synapse assembly, and cell-cell adhesion mediator activity pathways. 5 key findings →

Participants: 189 Evidence: moderate

Patient and Caregiver Outcomes of Health System, Community-Based, and Usual Dementia Care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2025-09-02

A total of 2176 person living with dementia-caregiver dyads were enrolled; 1271 persons living with dementia (58.4%) and 1650 caregivers (75.8%) were female, and their mean (SD) age were 80.6 (8.5) years and 65.2 (12.3) years, respectively. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,271 Evidence: high

. Longitudinally, older age (OR=1.14 [1.06-1.22], p<.001), higher levels of p-tau217 (OR=10.37 [3.00-35.02], p<.001) and higher neuropsychiatric symptoms (OR=1.19 [1.02-1.39], p=.023) were associated with higher odds of progression to dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

Of 9,361 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.1 ± 9.5 years, 36.7% female, 58.7% non-Hispanic White), 710 and 1,289 were new users of an ARB or ACEI. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Individuals with dementia and their care partners often report dissatisfaction with the disclosure process due to insufficient information and support. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

There was a significantly higher risk of developing a dementia diagnosis in Hispanic/Latino and NHB participants than NHW participants and comparably increased dementia hazard ratios in the Hispanic/Latino, NHB, and NHW APOE4 carriers than non-carriers (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval {CI}] 1.54 [1.25-1.91], 1.25 [1.00-1.57], and 1.55 [1.40-1.72]). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,784 Evidence: moderate

Dementia incidence and prevalence in older adults with HIV: a 23-year retrospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. AIDS 2025-12-01

Among 24 762 people with HIV and 494 963 people without HIV (86.9% men, 45.5% White, 23.1% Black, 20.3% Hispanic), incident dementia diagnoses declined from 2000 to 2023 in both people with and without HIV (-7.68 and -2.70% per period, respectively). 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 762 Evidence: moderate

After 3.5 years of follow up, 19 new cases of dementia were identified among 229 surviving participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 341 Evidence: moderate

The incidence of dementia was 0.68 (95% CI 0.64-0.72) cases per 100 person-years in pSS, and it was 0.58 (0.56-0.60) in the controls. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 20,160 Evidence: moderate

At least 45% of dementia and 60% of stroke cases are due to modifiable risk factors and could in part be prevented through healthy behavior. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,478 Evidence: moderate

Detecting Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis With Artificial Intelligence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Cardiology 2025-11-10

ATTRACTnet was developed in an internal test set of 799 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [11.1] years; 516 [64.7%] male and 283 [35.3%] female) using 5-fold cross-validation with an additional external test set of 422 patients. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 799 Evidence: high

Age, education level, number of pain sites, pain duration, pain level, depression and sleep quality were risk factors of MCI in older patients with chronic pain. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 612 Evidence: moderate

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical yet challenging, particularly in younger individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate

Between Sept 1, 2017, and Feb 28, 2019, 19 403 individuals were invited to participate and 9745 participants (1525 with dementia, 8220 without dementia) were included. 4445 (45·6%) of 9745 participants were male and 5300 (54·4%) were female. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 403 Evidence: moderate

Changes in sleep dimensions, cognitive transitions, and incident dementia: a two-cohort longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. SLEEP 2025-08-09

A total of 8994 and 14 720 participants were involved in the change-to-change analyses and change-to-dementia analyses, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 720 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