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 1,276–1,300 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 52 of 153) · 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.

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.

At 3 years, donanemab slowed disease progression on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR)-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) in early-start participants versus a weighted ADNI control (-1.2 points; 95 % confidence interval [CI], -1.7, -0.7). 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Whole-brain bm-CVR values were significantly associated with the diagnosis group of normal, MCI, and early dementia (β = -3.00%/mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-5.42, -0.58]), and were lower in the impaired participants relative to participants with normal cognition (β = -2.18, CI [-3.91, -0.45]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

BackgroundOdor identification deficits predict Alzheimer's disease (AD) in epidemiological studies. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 600 Evidence: low

Long sleep was associated with reduced overall cognitive function (β ± standard error = -0.25 ± 0.07, p < 0.001), with strongest effects in those with depressive symptoms using (-0.74 ± 0.30, p = 0.017) and not using antidepressants (-0.60 ± 0.26, p = 0.024). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

High LDL-C (≥160 mg/dL) increased AD risk across all groups {hazard ratio (HR): 1.23 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.38],p<0.001;HR: 1.45 (95% CI: 1.08-1.93),p=0.013;HR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42),p<0.001, respectively}, whereas low LDL-C (<70 mg/dL) showed higher VD risk in those not taking cholesterol-lowering medication [HR: 3.02 (95% CI: 1.73-5.27),p<0.001].Low HDL-C (≤40 mg/dL) was associated with increased AD and VD risk in non-users. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Association of hearing loss to brain structure and cognition in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Midlife hearing loss was associated with smaller brain volumes, accelerated decline in executive function, accelerated accrual of white matter abnormalities, and a near doubling of dementia risk, suggesting a potential causal or biomarker role for midlife hearing loss in the prevention of late‐life dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,656 Evidence: low

Elevated CKM risk level is significantly associated with increased risks of cognitive decline and dementia incidence. 3 key findings →

Participants: 426 Evidence: low

Our findings indicate that liver fat mediates associations between cardiometabolic factors and WMHs and that WMHs mediate the association between liver fat and cognitive performance. 5 key findings →

Participants: 32,461 Evidence: moderate

Molecular mechanisms and consequences of TDP-43 phosphorylation in neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Molecular Neurodegeneration 2025-05-08

Increased phosphorylation of TDP-43 is a pathological hallmark of several neurodegenerative disorders, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hippocampal and serum irisin levels were progressively reduced in CCH mice. 5 key findings →

Participants: 212 Evidence: low

Plasma pTau217 levels serve as a scalable, non-invasive marker of AD-pathology across Lewy body diseases, PSP/CBS, and MCI/CU populations. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Multidomain interventions may benefit younger older adults or those with overly strict or lenient HbA1c control; however, these findings need confirmation in future studies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 531 Evidence: high

A repeated measures ANOVA showed that in comparison to the control group, both intervention groups significantly improved mood, quality of life, MIND diet score and all COM-B components at follow-up (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: high

This work was supported by a Crossover grant (Maintaining Optimal Cognitive Functioning In Aging [MOCIA] 17611) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO), granted in December 2019. 5 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: high

The intricate relationship between dietary habits and cognitive function is gaining increasing attention, with a focus on the gut-brain axis as a modifiable target for intervention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

A total of 266 older adults with hypertension were surveyed in this study, of whom 108 reported having fallen once or more in the past year. 5 key findings →

Participants: 266 Evidence: low

The control cohort (n = 36.5 million) was 1:1 PSM for age and sex with the HL cohort (n = 1.77 million) in which 0.28% of patients developed delirium compared to 0.74% in the HL cohort (OR 2.66, 95% CI = 2.58-2.75). 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

To the Editor: The standardized management of pain–agitation–delirium (PAD) represents a fundamental component of clinical practice in intensive care units (ICUs).[1] Evidence-based analgesia and sedation strategies not only alleviate patients’ physiological discomfort and psychological distress, but also significantly reduce mechanical ventilation duration, improve long-term prognosis, and optimize healthcare resource allocation.[1,2] Equally crucial is delirium management, as evidenced by studies demonstrating that delirium duration independently predicts mortality risk, hospital stay length, healthcare expenditures, and acquired dementia incidence.[3] Although existing studies have explored PAD management practices, most rely on clinicians’ subjective recall that may distort objective clinical realities and fail to reflect distinctive characteristics.[4] Therefore, this nationwide multicenter cross-sectional study, initiated by the Critical Care Analgesia and Sedation Quality Control Subspecialty Group under the China National Center for Medical Quality Control in Critical Care Medicine, aims to investigate the current status of PAD management in China. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,627 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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