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 126–150 of 609 studies published 2009 (page 6 of 25) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Total and cause-specific mortality in the cardiovascular health study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2009-09-01

In these older adults, associations of risk factors with a given cause of death were related to specific deficits in that same organ system. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

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

Cognitive and sensory declines in old age: gauging the evidence for a common cause

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2009-03-01

Resource accounts of behavioral aging postulate that age-associated impairments within and across intellectual and sensory domains reflect, in part, a common set of senescent alterations in the neurochemistry and neuroanatomy of the aging brain. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 516 Evidence: moderate

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

2009 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2009-05-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the sixth leading cause of all deaths in the United States, and the fifth leading cause of death in Americans aged 65 and older. 1 key finding →

Participants: 200,000 Evidence: low

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

The genetic architecture of Down syndrome phenotypes revealed by high-resolution analysis of human segmental trisomies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2009-07-13

Down syndrome (DS), or trisomy 21, is a common disorder associated with several complex clinical phenotypes. 1 key finding →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

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

Optimizing power to track brain degeneration in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment with tensor-based morphometry: an ADNI study of 515 subjects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. NeuroImage 2009-07-14

Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) is a powerful method to map the 3D profile of brain degeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Genetic control of human brain transcript expression in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. American journal of human genetics 2009-04-01

We recently surveyed the relationship between the human brain transcriptome and genome in a series of neuropathologically normal postmortem samples. 4 key findings →

Participants: 188 Evidence: moderate

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

Chronic temporal lobe epilepsy: a neurodevelopmental or progressively dementing disease?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2009-07-27

To what degree does the so-called 'initial hit' of the brain versus chronic epilepsy contribute towards the memory impairment observed in chronic temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) patients? 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,156 Evidence: low

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

A meta-analysis examining clinical predictors of hippocampal volume in patients with major depressive disorder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN 2009-01-01

Although all studies were cross-sectional, our results suggest that hippocampal volume reductions generally occur after disease onset in patients with MDD. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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