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 151–175 of 727 studies published 2010 (page 7 of 30) · 27,780 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.

The evidence of a preventive treatment effect aimed at vascular risk factors on cognitive decline and dementia in later life is scarce and mostly based on secondary outcome parameters. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

The study will explore the added value of a multifaceted intervention programme and contribute to the design of future interventions for patients with mild dementia and their caregivers. 1 key finding →

Participants: 330 Evidence: high

Sixty-six studies met inclusion criteria for the relationship between physical activity and functional independence, and 34 were included with a cognitive function outcome. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The molecular pathways leading to Alzheimer-type dementia are not well understood, but the amyloid beta-protein is believed to be centrally involved. 4 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate

What the left and right anterior fusiform gyri tell us about semantic memory

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2010-10-15

The study of patients with semantic dementia, a variant of frontotemporal lobar degeneration, has emerged over the last two decades as an important lesion model for studying human semantic memory. 4 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate

TDP-43 and FUS in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2010-10-01

Abnormal intracellular protein aggregates comprise a key characteristic in most neurodegenerative diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Accelerated progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia in people with diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Diabetes 2010-08-16

Diabetes and pre-diabetes substantially accelerate the progression from MCI to dementia, and anticipate dementia occurrence by more than 3 years in people with MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 302 Evidence: moderate

Evidence is insufficient to support the use of pharmaceutical agents or dietary supplements to prevent cognitive decline or Alzheimer’s disease. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Timing of hormone therapy and dementia: the critical window theory revisited

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2010-11-12

Although previous research has shown that initiation of postmenopausal estrogen hormone therapy (HT) in late life increases risk of dementia, animal studies and some observational studies have suggested that midlife use of HT may be beneficial; however, this has not been rigorously investigated in large population-based studies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,524 Evidence: low

In a community-dwelling population with generally mild AD, hospitalization is frequent, occurring in two-thirds of participants over a median follow-up time of 3 years. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

Trauma exposure itself in the absence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be associated with hippocampal volume deficits. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Detection of elevated levels of α-synuclein oligomers in CSF from patients with Parkinson disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2010-10-20

The levels of α-synuclein oligomers and oligomers/total-α-synuclein ratio in CSF were higher in the PD group (n = 32; p < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney U test) compared to the control group (n = 28). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 32 Evidence: low

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) have consistently observed strong evidence of association with polymorphisms in APOE. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Because of the heterogeneity of populations and interventions, meta-analyses were not possible and results are presented in narrative form. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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