alzhub.org
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.

Research

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 26–50 of 104 studies with an author at KU Leuven (BE) · free to read (page 2 of 5) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 104 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Xenografted human microglia display diverse transcriptomic states in response to Alzheimer's disease-related amyloid-β pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2024-03-27

Microglia are central players in Alzheimer's disease pathology but analyzing microglial states in human brain samples is challenging due to genetic diversity, postmortem delay and admixture of pathologies. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Single-cell RNA sequencing-derived signatures define response patterns to atezolizumab + bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of hepatology 2024-12-19

& aims The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (atezo+bev) is the current standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), providing a median overall survival (OS) of 19.2 months. 4 key findings →

Participants: 317 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The probabilistic model of Alzheimer disease: the amyloid hypothesis revised

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2021-11-23

The current conceptualization of Alzheimer disease (AD) is driven by the amyloid hypothesis, in which a deterministic chain of events leads from amyloid deposition and then tau deposition to neurodegeneration and progressive cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A metabolite-based machine learning approach to diagnose Alzheimer-type dementia in blood: Results from the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer disease biomarker discovery cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2019-12-18

This study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. 4 key findings →

Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Interactions of pathological proteins in neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2017-04-11

Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD), Lewy body disease (LBD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) have in common that protein aggregates represent pathological hallmark lesions. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Proteomic analysis reveals distinct cerebrospinal fluid signatures across genetic frontotemporal dementia subtypes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Science Translational Medicine 2025-02-05

We used an untargeted mass spectrometric approach, tandem mass tag proteomics, for the identification of proteomic signatures in genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 238 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Gain of Toxicity from ALS/FTD-Linked Repeat Expansions in C9ORF72 Is Alleviated by Antisense Oligonucleotides Targeting GGGGCC-Containing RNAs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neuron 2016-04-21

Hexanucleotide expansions in C9ORF72 are the most frequent genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

TDP-43 proteinopathies: a new wave of neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2020-11-11

Inclusions of pathogenic deposits containing TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) are evident in the brain and spinal cord of patients that present across a spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A European multicentre PET study of fibrillar amyloid in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2012-09-08

[(11)C]PIB retention in the neocortical and subcortical brain regions was significantly higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 97 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

ATP13A2 deficiency disrupts lysosomal polyamine export

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nature 2020-01-29

ATP13A2 (PARK9) is a late endolysosomal transporter that is genetically implicated in a spectrum of neurodegenerative disorders, including Kufor-Rakeb syndrome-a parkinsonism with dementia 1 -and early-onset Parkinson's disease 2 . 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Novel Alzheimer risk genes determine the microglia response to amyloid-β but not to TAU pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. EMBO molecular medicine 2020-01-17

Polygenic risk scores have identified that genetic variants without genome-wide significance still add to the genetic risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events