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 909 studies published 2016 (page 6 of 37) · 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.

Diagnostic Impact of Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker (Pre-)Analytical Variability in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2016

Intra- and inter-laboratory variability of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker analyses remains an important issue. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 85 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Technology-enhanced multi-domain at home continuum of care program with respect to usual care for people with cognitive impairment: the Ability-TelerehABILITation study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. BMC psychiatry 2016-11-25

The expected outcome is to ensure the continuity of care from clinical practice to the patient's home, enabling also cost effectiveness and the empowerment of patient and caregiver in the care process, positively impacting on their quality of life. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high

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

The Empowering Role of Mobile Apps in Behavior Change Interventions: The Gray Matters Randomized Controlled Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2016-08-02

This paper explores the rationale for a mobile phone-led intervention and details the app's effect on behavior change and subsequent clinical outcomes. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 102 Evidence: high

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

Targeting Functional Decline in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Annals of internal medicine 2016-11-22

The authors could not definitively demonstrate whether the addition of 2 years of in-home occupational therapy to a collaborative care management model slowed the rate of functional decline among persons with Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

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

TDP-43 stage, mixed pathologies, and clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2016-11-01

We tested the hypotheses that TDP-43 with Alzheimer's disease pathology is a common mixed pathology; is related to increased likelihood of expressing clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia; and that TDP-43 pathologic stage is an important determinant of clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 398 Evidence: moderate

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

Association Between Anticholinergic Medication Use and Cognition, Brain Metabolism, and Brain Atrophy in Cognitively Normal Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2016-06-01

The use of AC medication was associated with increased brain atrophy and dysfunction and clinical decline. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Continuity of Care and Health Care Utilization in Older Adults With Dementia in Fee-for-Service Medicare

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2016-09-01

Beneficiaries with dementia who had lower levels of continuity of care were younger, had a higher income, and had more comorbid medical conditions. 3 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate

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

Decreased synaptic proteins in neuronal exosomes of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 2016-09-06

Synaptic dysfunction occurs early in senile dementias, presumably as a result of decreased levels of functional synaptic proteins as found in autopsied brains of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

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

Cortical atrophy in patients with cerebral amyloid angiopathy: a case-control study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2016-05-11

We postulated that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), characterised by cortical vascular amyloid deposits, is associated with cortical tissue loss independent of parenchymal Alzheimer's disease pathology. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 63 Evidence: moderate

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

Heterogeneity in Suspected Non-Alzheimer Disease Pathophysiology Among Clinically Normal Older Individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2016-10-01

In this study, clinically normal adults with SNAP did not exhibit evidence of elevated tau levels, which suggests that this biomarker construct does not represent amyloid-independent tauopathy. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 247 Evidence: moderate

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

Inequalities in dementia incidence between six racial and ethnic groups over 14 years

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2016-02-11

Dementia rates varied over 60% between groups, providing a comprehensive benchmark for the NAPA goal of reducing disparities. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18,778 Evidence: low

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

↑ 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