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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–12 of 12 studies by Thambisetty M · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 12 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

Other authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,259 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.

Sex-Specific Association of Apolipoprotein E With Cerebrospinal Fluid Levels of Tau

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-08-01

After correcting for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure, we observed a statistically significant interaction between APOE-ε4 and sex on CSF total tau (β = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55; P Conclusions and relevance We provide robust evidence of a stronger association between APOE-ε4 and CSF tau levels among women compared with men across multiple independent data sets. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,798 Evidence: moderate

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

Proteome-based plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2006-11-01

Alzheimer's disease is a common and devastating disease for which there is no readily available biomarker to aid diagnosis or to monitor disease progression. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 50 Evidence: moderate

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

Association of plasma clusterin concentration with severity, pathology, and progression in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of general psychiatry 2010-07-01

These results demonstrate an important role of clusterin in the pathogenesis of AD and suggest that alterations in amyloid chaperone proteins may be a biologically relevant peripheral signature of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Plasma clusterin concentration is associated with longitudinal brain atrophy in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. NeuroImage 2011-07-28

Recent genetic and proteomic studies demonstrate that clusterin/apolipoprotein-J is associated with risk, pathology, and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate

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

Genetic Variation in Targets of Antidiabetic Drugs and Alzheimer Disease Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neurology 2022-06-02

Genetic variation in sulfonylurea targets was associated with a lower risk of AD, and future studies are warranted to clarify the underlying mechanistic pathways between sulfonylureas and AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 326,885 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2024-10-01

It has been suggested that the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer disease (AD) is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a shift toward a biomarker-based approach, as proposed by the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of Alzheimer's Disease. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Prevalence of dementia subtypes in United States Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, 2011-2013

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2016-05-10

This study is the first to document concurrent prevalence of primary dementia subtypes among this US population. 1 key finding →

Participants: 21 Evidence: low

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

APOE epsilon4 genotype and longitudinal changes in cerebral blood flow in normal aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-01-01

Our findings suggest that APOE epsilon4-mediated risk for Alzheimer disease is associated with widespread decline in rCBF over time that precedes the onset of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

Rho-associated protein kinase 1 (ROCK1) is increased in Alzheimer's disease and ROCK1 depletion reduces amyloid-β levels in brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Journal of neurochemistry 2016-07-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia and mitigating amyloid-β (Aβ) levels may serve as a rational therapeutic avenue to slow AD progression. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A Decade of Blood Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease Research: An Evolving Field, Improving Study Designs, and the Challenge of Replication

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2018-01-01

Blood-based biomarkers represent a less invasive and potentially cheaper approach for aiding Alzheimer's disease (AD) detection compared with cerebrospinal fluid and some neuroimaging biomarkers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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 27,780 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