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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 951–975 of 1,335 studies published 2020 (page 39 of 54) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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; 12,859 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.

Recommendations to distinguish behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from psychiatric disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-06-01

BvFTD shows significant symptomatic overlap with non-degenerative primary psychiatric disorders including major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism spectrum disorders and even personality disorders. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Plasma biomarkers of astrocytic and neuronal dysfunction in early- and late-onset Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2020-01-16

Principle component analyses identified 3 factors: trophic (BDNF, VEGF, TGFβ), degenerative (GFAP, NfL), and inflammatory (TNFα, IL-6, IP-10, IL-10). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Cathepsin D regulates cerebral Aβ42/40 ratios via differential degradation of Aβ42 and Aβ40

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2020-07-06

Our findings identify CatD as the principal intracellular Aβ-degrading protease identified to date, one that regulates Aβ42/40 ratios via differential degradation of Aβ42 vs. Aβ40. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Levels of Retinal Amyloid-β Correlate with Levels of Retinal IAPP and Hippocampal Amyloid-β in Neuropathologically Evaluated Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2020-01-01

These results show that different isoforms of Aβ can be detected in the human retina and moreover support the growing number of studies indicating that AD-related pathological changes occurring in the brain could be reflected in the retina. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The behavioural and neuropathologic sexual dimorphism and absence of MIP-3α in tau P301S mouse model of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of neuroinflammation 2020-02-24

Our findings highlight sexual dimorphism in the behavior, neuropathology, and plasma proteins in tau P301S transgenic AD mice, indicating that the use of male P301S transgenic mice may be more suitable for assessing anti-phosphorylated tau therapeutic strategies for AD and related tauopathies, and the MIP-3α may be a new potential plasma biomarker. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Small RNA fingerprinting of Alzheimer's disease frontal cortex extracellular vesicles and their comparison with peripheral extracellular vesicles

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of extracellular vesicles 2020-06-04

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder, with the strongest disease-associated changes observed at clinical or end-stage disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Biomarker potential of brain-secreted extracellular vesicles in blood in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2020-03-05

Blood-isolated BEVs have emerged as a novel player in the study of AD, with enormous potential as a diagnostic, evaluation of therapeutics, and treatment tool. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment Through Natural Language and Touchscreen Typing Processing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Frontiers in digital health 2020-10-08

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an identified prodromal stage of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), often evades detection in the early stages of the condition, when existing diagnostic methods are employed in the clinical setting. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Supervised Digital Neuropsychological Tests for Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: Usability and Clinical Validity Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2020-09-21

The positive results pave the way for the deployment of the system to a nonsupervised environment, thus representing a potential efficacious and ecological solution to support clinicians in the identification of early signs of cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The Use of a Virtual Reality Platform for the Assessment of the Memory Decline and the Hippocampal Neural Injury in Subjects with Mild Cognitive Impairment: The Validity of Smart Aging Serious Game (SASG)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of clinical medicine 2020-05-06

Due to the lack of pharmacological treatment for dementia, timely detection of subjects at risk can be of seminal importance for preemptive rehabilitation interventions. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Process of Copying a Complex Figure in Early- and Late-Onset Alzheimer Disease: A Quantitative Analysis of Digital Pen Data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of medical Internet research 2020-08-12

The digitalized complex figure test evaluated copying performance quantitatively and further elucidated the patients' ongoing process during copying. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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