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 23,476–23,500 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 940 of 1086) · 28,180 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 advent of disease-modifying therapies for neurodegenerative diseases may result in a growing demand for nuclear neuroimaging procedures presenting opportunities but also challenges to the nuclear medicine community. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

BackgroundRecently published clinical studies suggest that blood-based biomarker tests (BBMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) provide value, but in the U.S., neither public nor private payers currently cover these tests. 1 key finding →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Since 2007, the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups classification system has favored billing codes for acute encephalopathy over delirium codes in determining hospital reimbursement and several quality-of-care value metrics, despite broad overlap between these sets of diagnostic codes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Repeated measures analyses revealed no significant changes over time. 2 key findings →

Participants: 40 Evidence: low

Failure to perform same-admission cholecystectomy (SA-CCY) for mild, acute, biliary pancreatitis (MABP) is a recognized risk factor for recurrence and readmission. 3 key findings →

Participants: 578 Evidence: low

Residence in a food desert (11·1 %, n 411) was not significantly associated with perceived access to healthy foods, most grocery shopping behaviours or dietary behaviour, but was significantly associated with primarily shopping at a superstore or supercentre v . a large grocery store (OR = 1·32; 95 % CI 1·02, 1·71; P = 0·03) and higher BMI ( b = 1·14; 95 % CI 0·36, 1·93; P = 0·004). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Deregulation of amyloid precursor protein (APP) processing with increased production of amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) is considered to be a key pathogenic event in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

The actual presence of the predicted precursor of Alzheimer's disease amyloid A4 protein, reported by Kang et al. (1987) in the Alzheimer brain, has yet to be verified. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Possible roles of the complement (C) system in the normal and injured brain were explored with inbred mice that carried a frameshift mutation in the C5 gene. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

While apolipoprotein E (ApoE) and beta-amyloid (A beta) co-localize in senile plaques in cortex and cerebellum in Alzheimer disease (AD), the A beta-positive, predominantly diffuse plaques in the striatum do not exhibit ApoE immunoreactivity regardless of disease duration. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Age and estrogen treatment influenced fiber outgrowth and compensatory neuronal sprouting after unilateral entorhinal cortex lesions (ECL) which model Alzheimer disease-like deafferentation in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Proteinopathies such as Alzheimer, Parkinson, and Huntington diseases, where aberrant proteins spread throughout the brain during disease progression, may share a molecular basis and mechanisms of propagation. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Prion diseases are characterized by accumulation of misfolded protein, gliosis, synaptic dysfunction, and ultimately neuronal loss. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Although the precise role of astrocytes in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is currently undefined, studies carried out at the molecular level may lead to new insights into the functioning of this class of brain cells in dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Encephalopathy with idiopathic hyperammonaemia and Alzheimer type II astrocytes in equidae

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Equine veterinary journal 1999-11-01

In 3 mature female horses of varying breeds, episodes of colic and depression for 14 days preceded an encephalopathic disorder with maniacal behaviour, anxiety, profuse sweating and, in one case, terminal opisthotonus. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Hemostatic biomarkers were higher in Vascular group compared to Alzheimer group whereas there was no difference in inflammatory biomarkers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 68 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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