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 1,126–1,150 of 15,839 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 46 of 634) · 28,580 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.

18F-flortaucipir (AV-1451) tau PET in frontotemporal dementia syndromes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2019-01-31

All patients underwent MRI and β-amyloid biomarker testing via 11 C-PiB or cerebrospinal fluid. 18 F-flortaucipir uptake in patients was compared to 53 β-amyloid negative normal controls using voxelwise and pre-specified region of interest approaches. 5 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

We investigated the incidence and extent of Lewy body (LB)-related alpha-synucleinopathy (LBAS) in the olfactory bulb (OB) in 320 consecutive autopsy patients from a general geriatric hospital (mean age, 81.5 +/- 8.5 years). 1 key finding →

Participants: 102 Evidence: low

Evaluation of early-phase [18F]-florbetaben PET acquisition in clinical routine cases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2016-10-08

Early-phase FBB acquisitions correlate on a relative quantitative and visual level with FDG PET scans, irrespective of the amyloid plaque density assessed in late FBB imaging. 3 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

Physical as well as cognitive training interventions improve specific cognitive functions but effects barely generalize on global cognition. 4 key findings →

Participants: 237 Evidence: low

These results suggest pairing tDCS with cognitive training enhances functional connectivity and working memory performance in older adults, and thus may hold promise as a method for remediating age-related cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: low

The results also suggest that grammatical reasoning and episodic memory should be targeted in developing appropriate outcome measures to assess efficacy of future interventions, and in developing cognitive training programmes to prevent or delay cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 65,000 Evidence: low

Along with rapid global population aging, the age-related cognitive disorders such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia have posed a serious threat to public health, health care system, and sustainable economic and societal development of all countries. 1 key finding →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

However, the brain plasticity associated with these proposed benefits of combined therapy has not yet been investigated in elderly subjects. 5 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

Older adults with mild dementia demonstrated worse baseline cognitive performance than participants without dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 72 Evidence: low

Souvenaid in the management of mild cognitive impairment: an expert consensus opinion

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2019-08-17

Early and accurate diagnosis of MCI provides a window of opportunity to improve the outcomes using a multimodal management approach including lifestyle risk factor modification and consideration of the multinutrient Souvenaid. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

The low likelihood of patients with cAF in general practice remaining on treatment long-term indicates that not all benefits as observed in clinical trials may be achieved in usual clinical practice. 4 key findings →

Participants: 41 Evidence: low

A lower number of teeth are positively related to swallowing dysfunction, whereas denture wearing contributes to recovery of swallowing function. 3 key findings →

Participants: 286 Evidence: low

Although their prognosis is worse, even the oldest and most severely frail patients may benefit from hospitalization for COVID-19, if sufficient resources are available. 5 key findings →

Participants: 48 Evidence: low

A longitudinal study of drivers with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-23

This study confirms previous reports of potentially hazardous driving in persons with early Alzheimer disease, but also indicates that some individuals with very mild dementia can continue to drive safely for extended periods of time. 3 key findings →

Participants: 128 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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