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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–18 of 18 studies by Quinn JF · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Other authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 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.

Effects of a gamma-secretase inhibitor in a randomized study of patients with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Neurology 2006-02-01

LY450139 dihydrate, a gamma-secretase inhibitor, was studied in a randomized, controlled trial of 70 patients with Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 70 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

ω-3 PUFA for Secondary Prevention of White Matter Lesions and Neuronal Integrity Breakdown in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA network open 2024-08-01

In this 3-year randomized clinical trial, ω-3 treatment was safe and well-tolerated but failed to reach significant reductions in WML accumulation or neuronal integrity breakdown among all participants, which may be attributable to sample size limitations. 5 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: high

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

Sex differences in progression to mild cognitive impairment and dementia in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Parkinsonism & related disorders 2018-02-09

This study provides evidence for sex differences in the progression to cognitive impairment in PD, while specific cognitive features become more important indicators of progression with impending conversion to PDD. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 418 Evidence: moderate

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

Association of GBA Mutations and the E326K Polymorphism With Motor and Cognitive Progression in Parkinson Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2016-10-01

GBA mutations (β = 4.65; 95% CI, 1.72-7.58; P = .002), E326K (β = 3.42; 95% CI, 0.66-6.17; P = .02), and GBA variants combined as a single group (β = 4.01; 95% CI, 1.95-6.07; P = 1.5 × 10-4) were associated with a more rapid decline in MDS-UPDRS III score. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 740 Evidence: moderate

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

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

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

Lipid peroxidation in aging brain and Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Free radical biology & medicine 2002-09-01

Lipid peroxidation is one of the major outcomes of free radical-mediated injury that directly damages membranes and generates a number of secondary products, both from fission and endocyclization of oxygenated fatty acids that possess neurotoxic activity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Age and apolipoprotein E*4 allele effects on cerebrospinal fluid beta-amyloid 42 in adults with normal cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2006-07-01

These CSF A beta 42 findings are consistent with acceleration by the APOE*4 allele of pathogenic A beta 42 brain deposition starting in later middle age in persons with normal cognition. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Detection of biomarkers with a multiplex quantitative proteomic platform in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2006-08-01

Biomarkers are needed to assist in the diagnosis and medical management of various neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and dementia with Lewy body (DLB). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

MRI substudy participation in Alzheimer disease (AD) clinical trials: baseline comparability of a substudy sample to entire study population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2009-10-01

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

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. 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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