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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 8,401–8,425 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 337 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.

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.

Effect of Off-Target Binding on 18F-Flortaucipir Variability in Healthy Controls Across the Life Span

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 2019-03-15

The correlation between white and gray matter disappeared after partial-volume correction in 11 C-PIB ( r 2 = 0) but persisted for 18 F-flortaucipir ( r 2 = 0.27), demonstrating that the correlation between white and gray matter signal in 18 F-flortaucipir is not solely due to partial-volume effects. 4 key findings →

Participants: 139 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Hippocampal volumes, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy metabolites, and cerebrovascular disease in mild cognitive impairment subtypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2008-12-01

The MRI and 1H MRS findings in single-domain aMCI are consistent with a pattern similar to that of Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Vascular subcortical hyperintensities predict conversion to vascular and mixed dementia in MCI patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Stroke 2008-04-24

The risk of vascular or mixed dementia, but not of other types of dementia, was significantly increased in MCI patients with a large amount of subcortical hyperintensities at baseline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 170 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

2023 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-03-14

This article describes the public health impact of Alzheimer's disease, including prevalence and incidence, mortality and morbidity, use and costs of care, and the overall impact on family caregivers, the dementia workforce and society. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Prevalence and impact of caregiving: a detailed comparison between dementia and nondementia caregivers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Gerontologist 1999-04-01

Analyzing data from more than 1,500 family caregivers from the 1996 National Caregiver Survey, this study documents the ways in which dementia care is different from other types of family caregiving. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Neuroimaging correlates of pathologically defined subtypes of Alzheimer's disease: a case-control study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2012-09-03

Compared with typical AD, hippocampal-sparing AD has more neurofibrillary tangles in the cortex and fewer in the hippocampus, whereas the opposite pattern is seen in limbic-predominant AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Patient and caregiver characteristics associated with depression in caregivers of patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of general internal medicine 2003-12-01

The goal of this study was to determine the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with depression among caregivers of patients with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The cost of inaction on physical inactivity to public health-care systems: a population-attributable fraction analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Lancet. Global health 2022-12-05

499·2 million new cases of preventable major NCDs would occur globally by 2030 if the prevalence of physical inactivity does not change, with direct health-care costs of INT$520 billion. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Loss of perivascular aquaporin-4 localization impairs glymphatic exchange and promotes amyloid β plaque formation in mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2022-04-26

These findings suggest that the loss of perivascular AQP4 localization may contribute to the development of AD pathology in human populations. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Interventions to reduce the burden of caregiving for an adult with dementia: a meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Research in nursing & health 2001-10-01

Because of conflicting results, in order to clarify the state of the science it was necessary to do a systematic analysis of the literature on research testing the effect of interventions on the burden of persons caring for family members with dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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