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 1,851–1,875 of 3,821 studies published 2025 (page 75 of 153) · 27,380 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.

BackgroundNeuropsychological (NP) assessment is crucial for diagnosing prodromal and Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) syndromes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,195 Evidence: low

The heart rate response/recovery (HRR) index, a common indicator for cardiovascular health during exercise, has been linked with neurocognitive disorders and mortality. 4 key findings →

Participants: 519 Evidence: low

Perspective: Emerging challenges for a future ADNI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

In the last two decades, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) has significantly advanced our understanding, technologies, and methods for detecting and diagnosing Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Among 389,314 participants, CKM stages were distributed as follows: stage 0 (10.0%), stage 1 (8.0%), stage 2 (57.6%), stage 3 (17.9%), and stage 4 (6.5%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 389,314 Evidence: low

The National Dementia Workforce Study was designed to improve our understanding of the individuals and systems who care for people with dementia, but designing and implementing such a study is challenging due to the large number of patient care organizations, clinical and direct care roles, and locations in which care is provided. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Molecular Mechanisms of Protein Aggregation in ALS-FTD: Focus on TDP-43 and Cellular Protective Responses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Cells 2025-05-08

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) are two neurodegenerative disorders that share common genes and pathomechanisms and are referred to as the ALS-FTD spectrum. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

TDP-43 mislocalization and aggregation are key pathological features of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)- and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The most common clinical symptoms in FTLD-TDP-PSP were memory loss (100%) followed by parkinsonism (80%), early falls (60%), and behavioral variant FTD (60%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 270 Evidence: low

Here, we found that the level of histone deacetylase 7 (HDAC7) was remarkably increased in the astrocytes of AD patients and P301S tau transgenic (PS19) mice. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer´s disease (AD) is dominated by a complex cellular pathology which involves most brain cell types with glial cells increasingly recognized as playing fundamental roles in neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition representing the most common cause of dementia and currently affects millions of people worldwide. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

KL -VSHET may help protect against amyloid pathology, particularly in the presence of APOE ε4, and regardless of APOE status in aMCI-AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 223 Evidence: low

Mediterranean Diet, Polyphenols, and Neuroprotection: Mechanistic Insights into Resveratrol and Oleuropein

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Nutrients 2025-12-16

Epidemiological studies suggest that higher MedDiet adherence is associated with slower cognitive decline, reduced conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease, and better motor and non-motor outcomes in Parkinson’s disease. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

In the dementia field, a number of applications are being developed aimed at boosting functional abilities. 3 key findings →

Participants: 43 Evidence: high

Exercise trainers played crucial roles that extended beyond the supervision of exercise sessions and contributed to participant engagement in the interventions. 1 key finding →

Participants: 21 Evidence: high

LUS and cognitive impairment are strong predictors of delirium in elderly COVID-19 patients. 3 key findings →

Participants: 64 Evidence: low

A total of 8,062,333 subjects hospitalized with COPD exacerbation were included, of whom 574,005 (7.2%) had a diagnosis of delirium. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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