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 8,001–8,025 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 321 of 1086) · 28,180 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.

Fluid and imaging biomarkers of Alzheimer disease (AD) are often used interchangeably, but some biomarkers may reveal earlier stages of disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 322 Evidence: low

The interplay between midlife vascular risk factors and midlife cognitive function with later life mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia (DEM) is not well understood. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,995 Evidence: low

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs), mainly caused by cerebrovascular injury, may lead to cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate

We tested the hypotheses that higher levels of and persistence of midlife leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) are associated long-term with lower cognitive decline and less incident dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 10,705 Evidence: low

Recent studies suggest that plasma phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau181) is a highly specific biomarker for Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related tau pathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 818 Evidence: low

Multi-modal latent factor exploration of atrophy, cognitive and tau heterogeneity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. NeuroImage 2019-07-22

Individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia exhibit significant heterogeneity across clinical symptoms, atrophy patterns, and spatial distribution of Tau deposition. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Mind Diet Adherence and Cognitive Performance in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2021-01-01

Adherence to the Mediterranean-DASH for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has previously been associated with cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,584 Evidence: low

Prospective studies reporting associations between cognitive performance and subsequent incident dementia have been subject to attrition bias. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,051 Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), launched in 2004, has worked to accelerate drug development by validating imaging and blood/cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease clinical treatment trials. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Identifying clinical measures that track disease in the earliest stages of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is important for clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

We examined the association of social activity with cognitive decline in 1138 persons without dementia at baseline with a mean age of 79.6 (SD = 7.5) who were followed for up to 12 years (mean = 5.2; SD = 2.8). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,138 Evidence: low

We assessed the impact of amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene locus duplications in early onset Alzheimer's disease in a Dutch population-based sample. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We have investigated the extent and pattern of immunostaining for the TAR DNA-binding protein, TDP-43, in 37 patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin (UBQ) pathology (FTLD-U). 4 key findings →

Participants: 37 Evidence: low

TARDBP mutations in motoneuron disease with frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2009-04-01

TDP-43 (TAR-DNA binding protein) aggregates in neuronal inclusions in motoneuron disease (MND), as well as in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and FTLD associated with MND (FTLD-MND). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A 10-year study of the incidence of and factors predicting dementia in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2000-04-01

The authors recruited 83 patients with PD and 50 controls, all without dementia at initial assessment, and assessed them at regular intervals over a maximum period of 122 months. 4 key findings →

Participants: 83 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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