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 9,526–9,550 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 382 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.

We provide the first evidence for the capability of a high-resolution positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging system in quantitatively mapping amyloid accumulation in living amyloid precursor protein transgenic (Tg) mice. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder characterized by cognitive and intellectual deficits and behavior disturbance. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cascading network failure across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2015-11-19

The two main findings of this paper are (i) the posterior default mode network fails before measurable amyloid plaques and appears to initiate a connectivity cascade that continues throughout the disease spectrum; and (ii) high connectivity between the posterior default mode network and hubs of high connectivity (many located in the frontal lobe) is associated with amyloid accumulation. 2 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

Accurate automatic estimation of total intracranial volume: a nuisance variable with less nuisance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. NeuroImage 2014-10-01

Total intracranial volume (TIV/ICV) is an important covariate for volumetric analyses of the brain and brain regions, especially in the study of neurodegenerative diseases, where it can provide a proxy of maximum pre-morbid brain volume. 3 key findings →

Participants: 288 Evidence: low

A novel MRI method--diffusion tensor imaging--was used to compare the integrity of several white matter fibre tracts in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Apoptotic nerve cell death is implicated in the pathogenesis of several devastating neurodegenerative conditions, including glaucoma and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Caregivers and neurologists considered incremental clinical benefit over SOC and safety to be highly desirable qualities for a new drug that could clear amyloid plaques and delay clinical progression and indicated a willingness to accept incremental ARIA-E to achieve additional clinical benefits. 2 key findings →

Participants: 137 Evidence: low

CAARS has the potential to predict CAA severity; however, its clinical utility should be evaluated in follow-up studies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Use of cholinesterase inhibitors is associated with increased rates of syncope, bradycardia, pacemaker insertion, and hip fracture in older adults with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Determinants of carer stress in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. International journal of geriatric psychiatry 1998-04-01

The findings confirm that the non-cognitive features of Alzheimer's disease are stressful for carers and indicate specific relationships between mood-related and behavioural signs of depression, walking and sleep disruptions and hallucinations in patients and adverse carer outcomes. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: low

The objective of this study was to assess the convergent validity of a 26-point Telephone Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in a longitudinal cohort of 46 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and incidence of the most frequent chronic health problems in relation to age in people with intellectual disabilities living in residential facilities in the Netherlands. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The overall relationships between hearing loss and memory systems were predicted by the ease of language understanding model (J. Rönnberg, 2003), but the exact mechanisms of episodic memory decline in hearing aid users (i.e., mismatch/disuse, attentional resources, or information degradation) remain open for further experiments. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

Study objective We seek to determine how delirium and dementia affect the accuracy of the presenting illness and discharge instruction comprehension in older emergency department (ED) patients. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 202 Evidence: low

Further detailed investigations into the development and treatment of comorbidities across the lifespan are needed for a successful longitudinal approach to healthcare in people with Down syndrome. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We report for the first time an association between altered BA profile, genetic variants implicated in AD, and cognitive changes in disease using a large multicenter study. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,464 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