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 1,901–1,925 of 15,839 studies scoring 30–49 out of 100 (page 77 of 634) · 28,580 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.

The study is a validation study of two psychogeriatric depression rating scales, The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

Recent studies indicate that there is a marked reduction in trkA-containing nucleus basalis neurons in end-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Sarcopenia and Muscle Functions at Various Stages of Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Frontiers in neurology 2018-08-28

Although sarcopenia is closely linked to dementia, particularly Alzheimer disease (AD), there are few studies examining the prevalence and associated factors of sarcopenia in subjects with AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 82 Evidence: low

Population studies indicate that subjective memory complaints by elderly people are correlated with cognitive performance. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,114 Evidence: low

The original validation study for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) suggests a cutoff score of 26; however, this may be too stringent for older adults, particularly for those with less education. 4 key findings →

Participants: 205 Evidence: low

Eleven patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) were selected from an initial cohort of 43 patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 43 Evidence: moderate

Reductions in cholinergic function occur in Alzheimer disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies and correlate with cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate

From a prospective Memory Clinic cohort including consecutively referred patients, age 60 years or above, and with MMSE score 20 or above, 36 patients with AD and 30 with MCI were included in this study. 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

Factor analyses yielded two strong and reliable factors representing underlying physical and cognitive dimensions of IADL. 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,072 Evidence: low

Arterial spin labeled MRI in prodromal Alzheimer's disease: A multi-site study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2013-04-30

We examined differences in cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by Arterial Spin Labeled perfusion MRI (ASL MRI) across the continuum from cognitively normal (CN) older adults to mild Alzheimer's Disease (AD) using data from the multi-site Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 47 Evidence: low

Spectrum of cognition short of dementia: Framingham Heart Study and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2015-10-09

We quantitated risk of progression to dementia in elderly persons without dementia from 2 population-based studies, the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), aged 70 to 89 years at enrollment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition (CETP) has been shown to increase levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and reduce levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

Deep Brain Stimulation of Frontal Lobe Networks to Treat Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2018-01-01

The study objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) at the ventral capsule/ventral striatum (VC/VS) region to specifically modulate frontal lobe behavioral and cognitive networks as a novel treatment approach for Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

The objective of this analysis was to develop a nonlinear disease progression model, using an expanded set of covariates that captures the longitudinal Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Fusing multi-modality data is crucial for accurate identification of brain disorder as different modalities can provide complementary perspectives of complex neurodegenerative disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We studied whether anxiety symptoms and anxiety disorders are associated with the risk of dementia and cognition. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,708 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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