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 1–25 of 31 studies by Zhou Y · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 31 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.

Association Between Midlife Vascular Risk Factors and Estimated Brain Amyloid Deposition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. JAMA 2017-04-01

An increasing number of midlife vascular risk factors was significantly associated with elevated amyloid SUVR; this association was not significant for late-life risk factors. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Persons with severe CAA compared with those without CAA were more likely to carry an APOE ε4 allele (64.9% vs 42.8%, respectively; P Conclusions and relevance Being Hispanic and having had a transient ischemic attack-like episode were predictors of CAA in persons with AD. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 193 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence of post-stroke cognitive impairment in china: a community-based, cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. PloS one 2015-04-13

International hospital-based studies have indicated a high risk of cognitive impairment after stroke, evidence from community-based studies in China is scarce. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 599 Evidence: low

TREM2 Maintains Microglial Metabolic Fitness in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Cell 2017-08-01

Elevated risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with hypomorphic variants of TREM2, a surface receptor required for microglial responses to neurodegeneration, including proliferation, survival, clustering, and phagocytosis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In older adults, variable agreement between in vivo imaging and CERAD NP score was observed. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Association between chronic pain and risk of incident dementia: findings from a prospective cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. BMC medicine 2023-05-04

Chronic musculoskeletal pain has been linked to dementia; however, chronic pain typically occurs in multiple sites; therefore, this study was to investigate whether greater number of chronic pain sites is associated with a higher risk of dementia and its subtypes. 4 key findings →

Participants: 356,383 Evidence: low

An (18)F-labeled PET amyloid-beta (Abeta) imaging agent could facilitate the clinical evaluation of late-life cognitive impairment by providing an objective measure for Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 16 Evidence: low

Despite differences in prevalence of APOE-ε4, its association with dementia risk was similar across Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and non-Latino White participants. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 46,325 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, is characterized by the abnormal accumulation of amyloid plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau aggregates, as well as microgliosis. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

TREM2 is a pattern recognition receptor, expressed on microglia and myeloid cells, detecting lipids and Aβ and inducing an innate immune response. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The high failure rate of clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementia (ADRD) is due to a lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of disease, and this deficit may be addressed by applying artificial intelligence (AI) to "big data" to rapidly and effectively expand therapeutic development efforts. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We have characterised the proteolytic cleavage events responsible for the shedding of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) from primary cultures of human macrophages, murine microglia and TREM2-expressing human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

High-affinity interactions and signal transduction between Aβ oligomers and TREM2

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. EMBO molecular medicine 2018-11-01

Rare coding variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) are associated with increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), but how they confer this risk remains uncertain. 4 key findings →

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.

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