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 76–100 of 609 studies published 2009 (page 4 of 25) · 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.

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.

The Alzheimer's Disease Centers' Uniform Data Set (UDS): the neuropsychologic test battery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2009-04-01

The neuropsychologic test battery from the Uniform Data Set (UDS) of the Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC) program of the National Institute on Aging consists of brief measures of attention, processing speed, executive function, episodic memory, and language. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Several factors influenced attrition in a population-based elderly cohort: neurological disorders in Central Spain Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2009-05-26

These findings on participants who are at high risk of dropout may be useful in the planning phase of future prospective studies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,278 Evidence: moderate

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

Longitudinal progression of Alzheimer's-like patterns of atrophy in normal older adults: the SPARE-AD index

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2009-05-04

A challenge in developing informative neuroimaging biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease is the need to identify biomarkers that are evident before the onset of clinical symptoms, and which have sufficient sensitivity and specificity on an individual patient basis. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Hippocampal atrophy as a quantitative trait in a genome-wide association study identifying novel susceptibility genes for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. PloS one 2009-08-07

Using hippocampal atrophy as a quantitative phenotype in a genome-wide scan, we have identified candidate risk genes for sporadic Alzheimer's disease that merit further investigation. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 381 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Effect of a CYP2D6 polymorphism on the efficacy of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-09-01

The single nucleotide polymorphism rs1080985 in the CYP2D6 gene may influence the clinical efficacy of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

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

Delirium in older emergency department patients: recognition, risk factors, and psychomotor subtypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 2009-01-20

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were met in 303 patients, and 25 (8.3%) presented to the ED with delirium. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 303 Evidence: low

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

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: predicting future clinical change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

MRI and CSF provide complimentary predictive information about time to conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease and combination of the 2 provides better prediction than either source alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 399 Evidence: low

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

Epidemiological pathology of dementia: attributable-risks at death in the Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2009-11-10

Such AR estimates cannot be derived from the living population; rather they estimate the relative contribution of specific pathologies to dementia at death. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Midlife and late-life obesity and the risk of dementia: cardiovascular health study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2009-03-01

These results help explain the "obesity paradox" as differences in dementia risk across time are consistent with physical changes in the trajectory toward disability. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,798 Evidence: low

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

Treatment of vascular risk factors is associated with slower decline in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-09-01

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate whether the treatment of VRF is associated with a slower cognitive decline in patients who have AD without cerebrovascular disease (CVD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 72 Evidence: high

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

Cardiovascular risk factors and incident Alzheimer disease: a systematic review of the literature

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2009-01-01

In this review, the evidence that single clinically defined cardiovascular risk factors are significantly associated with incident AD is inconsistent at best. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: diagnostic discrimination and cognitive correlations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low

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

↑ 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