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 6,801–6,825 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 273 of 692) · 30,580 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.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, characterized by early memory impairments and gradual worsening of daily functions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Extreme sleepiness and insomnia not only influence physical health, they also have a significant impact on mental health, such as by causing depression, which has a prevalence of 18% to 21% among young adults aged 16 to 24 in the United Kingdom. 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Subjective cognitive decline is a symptom that may appear in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The idea that eye movements can reflect certain aspects of brain function and inform on the presence of neurodegeneration is not a new one. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Outcomes of this study show the potential use of practical neurofeedback-based training games for brain exercise to enhance cognitive performance in the elderly population. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The study provides the preliminary evidence that family caregivers can use a touchscreen tablet, software and manual package to identify specific tasks and break these down into steps and that people living with dementia can then follow the prompts to complete the tasks. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dementia affects a proportionally large number of the older population, presenting a set of symptoms that cause cognitive decline and negatively affect quality of life. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Facing an unrelenting rise in dementia cases worldwide, researchers are exploring non-pharmacological ways to ameliorate cognitive decline in later life. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The increasing number of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease raises the question of their caring at home, especially when the disease causes disability and negative consequences in daily life such as isolation, falls, wandering, errors in drug taking. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

The Sammen Om Demens (together for dementia), a citizen science project developing and implementing an AI-based smartphone app targeting citizens with dementia, is presented as an illustrative case of ethical, applied AI entailing interdisciplinary collaborations and inclusive and participative scientific practices engaging citizens, end users, and potential recipients of technological-digital innovation. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a challenge for medical scientists worldwide, leading to a number of research efforts that focus on biosensor development for AD biomarkers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In this paper, we presented a classification method based on online learning for AD diagnosis by employing both cortical thickness data and hippocampal shape analysis data. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This suggests that the N-CAB assessment battery may be an appropriate alternative for the clinical screening of cognition for earlier detection of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Virtual navigation tested on a mobile app is predictive of real-world wayfinding navigation performance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. PloS one 2018-04-22

Virtual reality environments presented on tablets and smartphones have potential to aid the early diagnosis of conditions such as Alzheimer’s dementia by quantifying impairments in navigation performance. 2 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

↑ 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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    Where this research is being discussed: events