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 1,326–1,350 of 16,388 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 54 of 656) · 29,380 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.

33 Chinese- and 117 English-speaking older adults who received a diagnosis of normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment at consensus were included in the data analysis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Reduced speed and reduced smoothness in speed and pressure were observed particularly in the LBD group, while increased pauses and total durations were observed in both the AD and LBD groups. 3 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

Eighty-three apps were reviewed (stroke, N=8; migraine, N=25; Alzheimer's disease and dementia, N=8; depression, N=7; anxiety, N=14; apps targeting depression and anxiety, N=21). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

In MCI subjects, the NCPT composite is significantly correlated with both a composite measure of established tests (r = 0.78, p < 0.0001) as well as with the ADAS-Cog (r = -0.55, p < 0.0001). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Smartphone applications for informal caregivers of chronically ill patients: a scoping review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. NPJ digital medicine 2022-03-21

Mobile-health applications can be used to deliver timely and personalized health information to family and friends of chronically ill adults living in the community. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The median (interquartile range) test time for MARC was 401 (350-453) s. Total MARC scores were significantly worse in the MCI and ADD groups than in the NDC group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). 5 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: low

Peruvian validation and standardization of the TabCAT-brain health assessment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Frontiers in public health 2025-08-29

By incorporating sex, place of residence, age, and years of education as covariates, the TabCAT-BHA demonstrated greater accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment (AUC = 75.3%) compared to the MMSE (AUC = 66.4%) and RUDAS (AUC = 71.4%). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results show evidence for increased performance in the assessment of general cognitive functioning in both EGs (p ≤ 0.05). 5 key findings →

Participants: 84 Evidence: low

FGWAS: Functional genome wide association analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. NeuroImage 2017-07-20

Functional phenotypes (e.g., subcortical surface representation), which commonly arise in imaging genetic studies, have been used to detect putative genes for complexly inherited neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. 2 key findings →

Participants: 708 Evidence: low

Preclinical models of Alzheimer's disease (AD) suggest APOE modulates brain function in structures vulnerable to AD pathophysiology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 608 Evidence: low

Brain iron accumulation, which is indicated in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) ferritin, is associated with the development of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: low

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a central regulator of microglial activity and loss-of-function coding variants are major risk factors for late onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mutational analysis in early-onset familial Alzheimer's disease in Mainland China

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2014-02-20

Mutations of 3 causative genes, namely presenilin 1 (PSEN1), presenilin 2 (PSEN2), and amyloid precursor protein (APP), have been identified as the major causes of early-onset familial Alzheimer's disease (EOFAD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

Comprehensive single-cell transcriptomic atlas of microglia in Alzheimer's disease mouse models

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2026-03-21

Microglia are central mediators of neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet conserved microglial states and activation trajectories across AD mouse models remain incompletely defined. 1 key finding →

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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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