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 23,501–23,525 of 27,146 studies marked Peer-reviewed (page 941 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.

In a perimenopausal model of middle-aged rats, the astrocyte estrogen receptor-alpha (ERa): ER-beta (ERb) ratio increased with the onset of acyclicity (constant estrus, CE) in association with impaired neurotrophic responses to estradiol (E2). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Dementia is a common feature in Parkinson's disease (PD) and is considered to be the result of limbic and cortical Lewy bodies and/or Alzheimer changes. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia worldwide, characterized by the deposition of neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides in the brain. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Sleep disturbances are prevalent in patients with Alzheimer' disease (AD), being one of the most troubling symptoms during the progression of disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Although plasma cholesterol levels are not generally associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) incidence, in vitro studies have found that increased cellular cholesterol levels are associated with increases in -amyloid (A ) production, with a concomitant decrease in sAPPa, the secreted non amyloidogenic fragment of the amyloid precursor protein (APP). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The authors of this mini-review list the key benefits (e.g., positive results of the reviewed randomized clinical trials studies for the improvement of cognitive decline in AD) and limitations (e.g., low awareness of benefits of TCM in Europe) of Chinese medicine therapy for the treatment of AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Olfactory bulb lesions in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 1992-07-01

The olfactory bulb (OB), with its comparatively simple and well-delineated connectivity, presents an interesting system for examining cell-specific pathology in neurologic degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: the evolution of a disease once considered rare

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of neurovirology 1995-03-01

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, a formerly rare disease that chiefly occurred in persons with underlying lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, is now seen with increasing frequency in the era of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Barriers to healthcare access for cognitively impaired older Hispanics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2000-07-01

This study describes the development of the Barriers to Healthcare Access Survey (BHAS) used to evaluate seven barrier factors believed to influence healthcare access for elderly Hispanics with memory or cognitive problems. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

There was a trend toward increased risk of being assaulted in the last year associated with being in a non-SCU facility. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the early stages of neurodegenerative disorders, individuals may exhibit a decline in language abilities that is difficult to quantify with standardized tests. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Artificial intelligence as an emerging technology in the current care of neurological disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Journal of neurology 2019-08-26

The smart device system to monitor tremors and to recognize its phenotypes for better outcomes of deep brain stimulation, applications evaluating fine motor functions, AI integrated electroencephalogram learning to diagnose epilepsy and psychological non-epileptic seizure, predict outcome of seizure surgeries, recognize patterns of autonomic instability to prevent sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), identify the pattern of complex algorithm in neuroimaging classifying cognitive impairment, differentiating and classifying concussion phenotypes, smartwatches monitoring atrial fibrillation to prevent strokes, and prediction of prognosis in dementia are unique examples of experimental utilizations of AI in the field of neurology. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Patterns of discourse cohesion and coherence in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The Journal of speech and hearing disorders 1988-02-01

Patterns of discourse--as reflected in the use of propositions, cohesion devices, and in judgments of coherence--in the speech of 6 well elderly and 6 patients with senile dementia of the Alzheimer type (SDAT) during topic-centered interviews were compared. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Telemedicine can improve access to speech and language evaluation services which is relevant to both dementia and other neurological diseases of the elderly. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Intrusions and perseverations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Brain and language 1984-09-01

Twenty-two subjects with presumed senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type (SDAT), twenty-two with dementia other than SDAT, twenty with aphasia, and seventeen healthy controls over 50 years of age were examined for intrusions and perseverations. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Proteomics has a wide range of applications, including determination of differences in the proteome in terms of expression and post-translational protein modifications. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The consequences of chromosome imbalance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. American journal of medical genetics. Supplement 1990-01-01

Review of the clinical cytogenetic literature provides compelling evidence for a specific relationship between imbalance of particular chromosomes or chromosomal regions and the appearance of defined patterns of phenotypic abnormalities. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The neurodegeneration and amyloid deposition of sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) also occur in familial AD and in all trisomy-21 Down syndrome (DS) patients, suggesting a common pathogenetic mechanism. 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 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