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 35 studies with an author at Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN) · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 35 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.

Letters18 February 2020Geographic Variation in Prevalence of Adult Obesity in China: Results From the 2013–2014 National Chronic Disease and Risk Factor SurveillanceXiao Zhang, MD, PhD, Mei Zhang, MD, PhD, Zhenping Zhao, MD, Zhengjing Huang, MPH, Qian Deng, MD, PhD, Yichong Li, MD, PhD, An Pan, MD, PhD, Chun Li, MD, Zhihua Chen, MD, Maigeng Zhou, MD, PhD, Chao Yu, PhD, Alfred Stein, PhD, Peng Jia, PhD*, and Limin Wang, MPH*Xiao Zhang, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Mei Zhang, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhenping Zhao, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhengjing Huang, MPHNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Qian Deng, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Yichong Li, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), An Pan, MD, PhDSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China (A.P.), Chun Li, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Zhihua Chen, MDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China (X.Z., M.Z., Z.Z., Z.H., Q.D., Y.L., C.L., Z.C., M.Z., L.W.), Maigeng Zhou, MD, PhDNational Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Center for Disease Control and 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Physical Frailty, Genetic Predisposition, and Incident Parkinson Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2023-05-01

Cross-sectional evidence implicates high prevalent frailty in patients with Parkinson disease (PD), whereas the longitudinal association remains unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 101 Evidence: moderate

After adjusting for various risk factors, participants with low socioeconomic status (vs high) had increased risk for early-onset dementia (3·38, 2·61-4·37), and overall lifestyle mediated 3·2% (1·8-5·7) of the association. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 345 Evidence: moderate

Social determinants of health (SDHs) are the primary drivers of preventable health inequities, and the associations between SDHs and health outcomes among individuals with type 2 diabetes remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate

Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Parkinson disease diagnosis and progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-03-11

There is a clear need to develop biomarkers for Parkinson disease (PD) diagnosis, differential diagnosis of Parkinsonian disorders, and monitoring disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Active Travel Mode and Incident Dementia and Brain Structure

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-06-09

The study encompassed 479 723 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; 260 730 females [54.4%]), including 271 690 in the YOD analyses and 334 939 in the LOD analyses. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 723 Evidence: moderate

Digital Isolation and Dementia Risk in Older Adults: Longitudinal Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2025-01-12

The moderate to high isolation group demonstrated a significantly elevated risk of dementia compared with the low isolation group. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 8,189 Evidence: moderate

However, due to the synergistic effect between diabetic pathology and neuroinflammation, and the prothrombotic profile in patients with diabetes, whether vitamin D is associated with risk of dementia among patients with diabetes is unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 13,486 Evidence: low

Pathophysiologic-constrained ADL provided interpretable, personalized pathologic maps and an AI-derived ADAD score that more closely linked PET pathologic abnormalities with multimodal clinical measures. © RSNA, 2026 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 7,457 Evidence: moderate

Microinfarcts occur commonly in the aging brain as a consequence of diffuse embolic events and are associated with the development of vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

To the Editor: The standardized management of pain–agitation–delirium (PAD) represents a fundamental component of clinical practice in intensive care units (ICUs).[1] Evidence-based analgesia and sedation strategies not only alleviate patients’ physiological discomfort and psychological distress, but also significantly reduce mechanical ventilation duration, improve long-term prognosis, and optimize healthcare resource allocation.[1,2] Equally crucial is delirium management, as evidenced by studies demonstrating that delirium duration independently predicts mortality risk, hospital stay length, healthcare expenditures, and acquired dementia incidence.[3] Although existing studies have explored PAD management practices, most rely on clinicians’ subjective recall that may distort objective clinical realities and fail to reflect distinctive characteristics.[4] Therefore, this nationwide multicenter cross-sectional study, initiated by the Critical Care Analgesia and Sedation Quality Control Subspecialty Group under the China National Center for Medical Quality Control in Critical Care Medicine, aims to investigate the current status of PAD management in China. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,627 Evidence: moderate

Microinfarcts are a common clinical feature of the aging brain, particularly in patients with cognitive decline or vascular or Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

• CircS was associated with a 40.1 % increased risk of incident all-cause dementia. • A graded increase in dementia risk with escalating severity of CircS. • The presence of ≥ 3 CircS components was significantly associated with dementia. • There was a synergistic effect of CircS and high genetic risk on dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The CNN-BiLSTM-Attention model demonstrated relatively promising predictive performance (AUC: 0.7317), with moderately high sensitivity (0.6902) and a high negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.9414. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,626 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

The final models included six predictors: caregivers' social support, caregivers' employment situation, caregivers' average daily care duration, caregivers' monthly family income, caregivers' self-efficacy and PwD's chronic disease. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional 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.

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