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 15,526–15,550 of 17,283 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 622 of 692) · 30,580 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.

In addition to mental retardation, individuals with Down syndrome (DS) also develop the neuropathological changes typical of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the majority of these individuals exhibit dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Parkinson's disease: a dual-hit hypothesis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neuropathology and applied neurobiology 2007-10-24

Accumulating evidence suggests that sporadic Parkinson's disease has a long prodromal period during which several non-motor features develop, in particular, impairment of olfaction, vagal dysfunction and sleep disorder. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have observed hyperactivity in the hippocampal region in individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) is responsible for developing and maintaining a database of patient information collected from the 29 Alzheimer disease centers (ADCs) funded by the National Institute on Aging. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We tested the hypothesis that synaptic defects in the hippocampus of individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) correlate with the severity of cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Impact of Gender and Estrogen on Striatal Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1998-05-01

The reproductive properties of estrogen are well established, but it is now evident that this steroid hormone has substantial modulatory capabilities in nonreproductive systems. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

New technologies have considerable potential to support people with semantic dementia-a form of progressive aphasia-in their everyday lives, but evidence is still sparse. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The present review integrates findings of published studies that have evaluated the cognitive function of treated and untreated type 2 diabetic patients and provides a detailed overview of the neuropsychological assessments conducted. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

High-throughput profiling of the mitochondrial proteome using affinity fractionation and automation

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Electrophoresis 2000-10-01

Recent studies have demonstrated the need for complementing cellular genomic information with specific information on expressed proteins, or proteomics, since the correlation between the two is poor. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A surface-based technique for warping three-dimensional images of the brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 1996-01-01

The authors have devised, implemented, and tested a fast, spatially accurate technique for calculating the high-dimensional deformation field relating the brain anatomies of an arbitrary pair of subjects. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Hyperglycemia and Glycation in Diabetic Complications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Antioxidants and Redox Signaling 2009-06-02

Increasing evidence indicates that hyperglycemia is the initiating cause of the tissue damage occurring in diabetes, either through repeated acute changes in cellular glucose metabolism, or through the long-term accumulation of glycated biomolecules and advanced glycation end products (AGEs). 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% 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    Where this research is being discussed: events