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 226–250 of 259 studies published 2009 · free to read (page 10 of 11) · 30,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 259 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.

As they mix together, they become purple.2 According to a few previous reports, PUBS often occurred in elderly women who are bedridden, chronically catheterized, and constipated.3 In addition, PUBS was found in alkaline urine and with higher bacterial counts.3,4 Because of lack of significant patient numbers, the clinical background, underlining diseases, urinanalysis, and incidence of PUBS have not been well documented. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Abnormal processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaque accumulation are defining features of Alzheimer disease (AD), a genetically complex neurodegenerative disease that is characterized by progressive synapse loss and neuronal cell death. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The groups of individuals who agreed to participate in the imaging substudies of AD trials were remarkably comparable to the comparison groups at baseline on a wide range of demographic and clinical measures; there seems to be a minimal effect of self-selection bias. 4 key findings →

Participants: 166 Evidence: high

The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is implied both in cell growth and differentiation and in neurodegenerative processes in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Allosteric modulation of PS1/gamma-secretase conformation correlates with amyloid beta(42/40) ratio

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. PloS one 2009-11-18

Presenilin 1(PS1) is the catalytic subunit of gamma-secretase, the enzyme responsible for the Abeta C-terminal cleavage site, which results in the production of Abeta peptides of various lengths. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We investigated the performance of FDG PET using an automated procedure for discrimination between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and controls, and studied the influence of demographic and technical factors. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Change detected by the MCI-CGIC was associated with baseline clinical severity and with change in clinical ratings over 6 and 12 months, supporting the validity of a CGIC approach in MCI. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

The amyloid-beta precursor protein (AbetaPP) is a ubiquitously expressed transmembrane protein whose cleavage product, the amyloid-beta (Abeta) protein, is deposited in amyloid plaques in neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer disease, Down syndrome, and head injury. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Beta-amyloid (Abeta) is thought to be a key contributor to the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) in the general population and in adults with Down syndrome (DS). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Caloric restriction attenuates amyloid deposition in middle-aged dtg APP/PS1 mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Neuroscience letters 2009-08-20

Caloric restriction (CR) mitigates neurological damage arising from aging and a variety of other sources, including neuropathology in young adult mice that express single and double transgenic (tg) mutations associated with Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The human GFAP splice variants GFAPDelta164 and GFAPDeltaexon6 both result in a GFAP protein isoform with a unique out-of-frame carboxy-terminus that can be detected by the GFAP+1 antibody. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is an age-related neurodegenerative disorder, characterized histopathologically by the presence of senile plaques (SP), neurofibrillary tangles and synapse loss in selected brain regions. 2 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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