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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 101–125 of 285 studies (page 5 of 12) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 285 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 285 studies tagged glp-1 — clear

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.

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.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists to expand the healthy lifespan: Current and future potentials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Aging cell 2023-03-20

To help ensure an expanded healthy lifespan for as many people as possible worldwide, there is a need to prevent or manage a number of prevalent chronic diseases directly and indirectly closely related to aging, including diabetes and obesity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

A Pathophysiological Intersection of Diabetes and Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. International journal of molecular sciences 2022-09-30

Diabetes is among the most prevalent diseases of the modern world and is strongly linked to an increased risk of numerous neurodegenerative disorders, although the exact pathophysiological mechanisms are not clear yet. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Beyond Glycemic Control: GLP-1RA–Based Therapies and Emerging Targets Beyond the Metabolic Axis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of clinical medicine 2026-02-06

Considering the overall sci-entific evidence presented, it is important to note that GLPs are no longer just antihyperglycemic drugs but are remarkably versatile, with a future in almost every field of medicine. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Liraglutide restores chronic ER stress, autophagy impairments and apoptotic signalling in SH-SY5Y cells

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Scientific Reports 2017-11-17

Growing evidence suggests that agonists of glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor exert neuroprotective and neurorestorative effects across a range of experimental models of neuronal degeneration, and, recently, a pilot clinical trial of Liraglutide in Alzheimer’s disease patients showed improvements in cerebral glucose consumption that signifies disease progression. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Early-Stage Alzheimer’s Disease Is Associated with Simultaneous Systemic and Central Nervous System Dysregulation of Insulin-Linked Metabolic Pathways

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2019-02-12

In MCI/AD, both the CSF and serum samples had significantly elevated mean levels of C-peptide and an incretin, and reduced expression of Visfatin, whereas only CSF showed significant reductions in insulin and leptin and only serum had increased glucagon, PAI-1, and ghrelin. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

The novel GLP‐1/GIP analogue DA5‐CH reduces tau phosphorylation and normalizes theta rhythm in the icv. STZ rat model of AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Brain and Behavior 2020-01-20

Our results demonstrate that DA5‐CH has neuroprotective effects in the STZ‐induced animal model and that DA5‐CH has potential to treat neurodegenerative disorders such as AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Drugs developed to treat diabetes, liraglutide and lixisenatide, cross the blood brain barrier and enhance neurogenesis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. BMC neuroscience 2012-03-23

Our results suggest that these novel incretin analogues cross the BBB and show physiological activity and neurogenesis in the brain, which may be of use as a treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

From across this tag

8 of the 285 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 8. The same 8 appear here every time.

↑ 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