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 10,276–10,300 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 412 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.

Prepandemic Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Anxious-Depressive Symptoms During the COVID-19 Confinement in Cognitively Unimpaired Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurology 2022-08-02

We investigated whether β-amyloid, cortical thickness in medial temporal lobe structures, neuroinflammation, and sociodemographic factors were associated with greater anxious-depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 confinement. 5 key findings →

Participants: 921 Evidence: moderate

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

The potential role of nutritional components in improving brain function among patients with Alzheimers disease: a meta-analysis of RCT studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) 2020-01-01

Chain-free SFA and TFA occur in greater amounts in the brains of individuals with AD than in those without AD. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,297 Evidence: high

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

The Uniform Data Set (UDS): Clinical and Cognitive Variables and Descriptive Data From Alzheimer Disease Centers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders 2006-10-01

A Clinical Task Force, composed of clinical leaders from Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC), was convened by the National Institute on Aging to develop a uniform set of assessment procedures to characterize individuals with mild Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment in comparison with nondemented aging.

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

Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease 2023-03-22

Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is approved in the United States for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be initiated in early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] due to AD or mild AD dementia) with confirmed brain amyloid pathology.

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

Caregiving and the Stress Process: An Overview of Concepts and Their Measures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Gerontologist 1990-10-01

This paper views caregiver stress as a consequence of a process comprising a number of interrelated conditions, including the socioeconomic characteristics and resources of caregivers and the primary and secondary stressors to which they are exposed.

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

Clinical Dementia Rating: A Reliable and Valid Diagnostic and Staging Measure for Dementia of the Alzheimer Type

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. International Psychogeriatrics 1997-12-01

Global staging measures for dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) assess the influence of cognitive loss on the ability to conduct everyday activities and represent the "ultimate test" of efficacy for antidementia drug trials.

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

The cardiovascular health study: Design and rationale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Annals of Epidemiology 1991-02-01

The Cardiovascular Health Study is a population-based, longitudinal study designed to evaluate factors related to the onset, course, and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in adults aged 65 years and older. 4 key findings →

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

Sequence of Deposition of Heterogeneous Amyloid β-Peptides and APO E in Down Syndrome: Implications for Initial Events in Amyloid Plaque Formation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurobiology of Disease 1996-02-01

Patients with trisomy 21 [Down syndrome (DS)] progressively develop amyloid beta-protein (A beta) deposits and then other features of Alzheimer's disease (AD), apparently due to increased gene dosage and thus expression of the beta-amyloid precursor protein.

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

The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI): A Practical Test for Cross-Cultural Epidemiological Studies of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. International Psychogeriatrics 1994-03-01

The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) has a score range of 0 to 100 and provides quantitative assessment on attention, concentration, orientation, short-term memory, long-term memory, language abilities, visual construction, list-generating fluency, abstraction, and judgment.

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

Microtubule-associated protein tau. A component of Alzheimer paired helical filaments.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Journal of Biological Chemistry 1986-05-01

Microtubule-associated protein tau was purified from bovine brain microtubules by either (1) phosphocellulose chromatography, (2) heat treatment at pH 6.4, (3) heat treatment at pH 2.7, (4) heat treatment at pH 2.7 followed by extraction with perchloric acid and precipitation with glycerol, or (5) by precipitation with ammonium sulfate followed by extraction with perchloric acid.

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 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