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 808 studies published 2013 (page 6 of 33) · 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.

Higher risk of progression to dementia in mild cognitive impairment cases who revert to normal

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2013-12-18

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 153 of 534 participants (28.7%) with prevalent or incident MCI progressed to dementia (71.3 per 1,000 person-years). 2 key findings →

Participants: 534 Evidence: moderate

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

Screening for cognitive impairment in older adults: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2013-11-01

Brief instruments to screen for cognitive impairment can adequately detect dementia, but there is no empirical evidence that screening improves decision making. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Association between hypoglycemia and dementia in a biracial cohort of older adults with diabetes mellitus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2013-07-01

During the 12-year follow-up period, 61 participants (7.8%) had a reported hypoglycemic event, and 148 (18.9%) developed dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 783 Evidence: moderate

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

TREM2 in neurodegeneration: evidence for association of the p.R47H variant with frontotemporal dementia and Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Molecular neurodegeneration 2013-06-21

Our results suggest that the TREM2 p.R47H substitution is a risk factor for frontotemporal dementia and Parkinson's disease in addition to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 609 Evidence: low

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

Neurocognitive enhancement in older adults: comparison of three cognitive training tasks to test a hypothesis of training transfer in brain connectivity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. NeuroImage 2013-08-06

The ultimate goal of cognitive enhancement as an intervention for age-related cognitive decline is transfer to everyday cognitive functioning. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Longitudinal differences in cognitive functioning among older adults with and without heart failure

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Journal of aging and health 2013-10-01

The results indicate that cognitive difficulties in memory and speed may occur prior to a HF diagnosis, while those with HF may experience steeper declines in reasoning as measured by word series test. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,790 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Predicting cognitive decline: a dementia risk score vs. the Framingham vascular risk scores

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2013-04-01

The CAIDE dementia and Framingham risk scores predict cognitive decline in late middle age but the Framingham risk scores may have an advantage over the dementia risk score for use in primary prevention for assessing risk of cognitive decline and targeting of modifiable risk factors. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

The prevalence of dementia in urban and rural areas of China

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2013-07-18

The prevalence of dementia, AD, and VaD among individuals aged 65 years and older were 5.14% (95% CI, 4.71-5.57), 3.21% (95% CI, 2.87-3.55), and 1.50% (95% CI, 1.26-1.74), respectively. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,096 Evidence: low

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

Preserving Identity and Planning for Advance Care (PIPAC): preliminary outcomes from a patient-centered intervention for individuals with mild dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Aging & mental health 2013-12-20

Emotion-focused, patient-centered interventions like PIPAC hold promise for advancing treatment options in the early and mild stages of dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 18 Evidence: high

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

Preclinical Alzheimer's disease and its outcome: a longitudinal cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2013-09-04

Compared with individuals classed as normal, participants with preclinical Alzheimer's disease had an increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (hazard ratio 6·2, 95% CI 1·1-35·0; p=0·040). 2 key findings →

Participants: 311 Evidence: low

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

Rate of conversion from prodromal Alzheimer's disease to Alzheimer's dementia: a systematic review of the literature

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extra 2013-09-28

Key message Extensive variation was observed in conversion rates due to the population sampled, diagnostic criteria, and duration, and because many studies did not account for loss to follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

CSF biomarker changes precede symptom onset of mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2013-10-16

This study evaluated longitudinal CSF biomarker measures collected when participants were cognitively normal to determine the magnitude and time course of biomarker changes before the onset of clinical symptoms in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 265 Evidence: moderate

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

CSF α-synuclein improves diagnostic and prognostic performance of CSF tau and Aβ in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2013-06-29

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Lewy body diseases (LBD), e.g., Parkinson's disease (PD) dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), are common causes of geriatric cognitive impairments. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 389 Evidence: moderate

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

Safety and pharmacology of a single intravenous dose of ponezumab in subjects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease: a phase I, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-escalation study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Clinical neuropharmacology 2013-01-01

A 2-hour infusion of 0.1 to 10 mg/kg ponezumab was well tolerated in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

↑ 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