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 701–725 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 29 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.

These findings highlight LBP prevalence in DSAD but suggest current SAA may fail to detect limited αSyn deposition. 4 key findings →

Participants: 270 Evidence: moderate

In the whole cohort, p ‐tau217, NfL, GFAP and p ‐tau181 were significantly increased over time showing more accelerated increase in Aβ+ than Aβ‐ participants. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 718 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p‐tau 217 offers a cost‐effective AD‐specific alternative to tau‐PET and could potentially be implemented for monitoring cognitive changes in AD trials, while amyloid‐PET lacks utility. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 141 Evidence: moderate

Significant association between SCN8A and Alzheimer disease in Puerto Ricans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

) within the first intron of SCN8A on chromosome 12 (Figure 1), overlapping a significant region in the previous admixture mapping analysis. eHiCA revealed more and stronger interactions between rs4761988 and SLC4A8, SCN8A and FIGNL2 in EU compared to AF genome (Figure 2), consistent with the admixture mapping result. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 867 Evidence: high

Of 65 participants (mean age = 79.4 years; women = 54%), 34% had dementia and 32% had CIND. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 65 Evidence: low

The relationship between sleep quality, neurofilament light chain (NFL), and cognitive impairment, including the potential effect of plasma NFL in this association, remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 640 Evidence: moderate

This study found a reciprocal association between gait speed and global or domain-specific cognition. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 511 Evidence: moderate

Economic Burden of Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias by Race and Ethnicity, 2020 to 2060

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-06-05

Of 31 028 older adults in MEPS, 5184 (10%) were African American; 146 (<1%) American Indian or Alaska Native; 1043 (3%) Asian (Indian, Chinese, or Filipino); 5346 (10%) Latino; 690 (2%) Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander; and 18 617 (75%) were White. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Wealth Disparities in End-of-Life Symptom Burden Among Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-03-06

Of 8976 decedents (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 4927 women [55.1%] women) in the cohort, 2197 (22.5%) were included in the low wealth category, 4534 (50.5%) in the medium wealth category, and 2245 (27.1%) in the high wealth category. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

This diverse sample of Indigenous (1.65%), Black (11.43%), Hispanic (9.85%), and White (77.07%) older adults had a mean age of 61 (SD = 9.66) and was 52% female. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,327 Evidence: moderate

Digital Isolation and Dementia Risk in Older Adults: Longitudinal Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2025-01-12

The moderate to high isolation group demonstrated a significantly elevated risk of dementia compared with the low isolation group. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 8,189 Evidence: moderate

The study cohort comprised a total of 6108 individuals diagnosed with AD dementia during the study period (28.4% males and 71.6% females). 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,108 Evidence: moderate

Identifying pathways to the prevention of dementia: the Netherlands consortium of dementia cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. BMC Neurology 2025-02-12

We increased the findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability (FAIR) status of the cohorts through harmonization of data across cohorts, implementation of medical imaging repositories for scan management, implementation of the Personal Health Train infrastructure and provision of meta-data in existing cohort catalogues. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Regional Differences in Dementia Incidence Among US Veterans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-06-09

Among the 1 268 599 participants (mean age, 73.9 [SD, 6.1] years; n = 25 335 [2%] female), dementia incidence rates per 1000 person-years were lowest in the Mid-Atlantic (11.2; 95% CI, 11.1-11.4) and highest in the Southeast (14.0; 95% CI, 13.8-14.2). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

We identify three distinct profiles: active healthy sleepers (AHS; 64.0%), fragmented poor sleepers (FPS; 14.1%), and long and frequent nappers (LFN; 21.9%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

To develop a simplified smell test for identifying patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), we reevaluated the Sniffin'-Sticks-Identification-Test (SST-ID) and University-of-Pennsylvania-Smell-Identification-Test (UPSIT), using three case-control studies. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 301 Evidence: moderate

Social isolation and loneliness were associated with a greater risk for incident dementia among T2DM individuals, with differential explanatory factors. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 24,986 Evidence: moderate

In this cohort of 2022 insulin-treated older adults with diabetes and ADRD (1011 CGM users and 1011 SMBG users; mean [SD] age, 76.4 [6.7] years; 1133 female [56.0%]), CGM use was significantly associated with lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96) and mortality (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67) compared with SMBG use. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

- Cognition was assessed with the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), measuring non-verbal fluency and executive functioning. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 23,798 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