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 26–50 of 97 studies by Trojanowski JQ (page 2 of 4) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 97 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.

The pathology-based classification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases is a work in progress that is important for both clinicians and basic scientists. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

An international group of clinical and basic scientists participated in the Frontotemporal Dementia and Pick's Disease Criteria Conference at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md, on July 7, 2000, to reassess clinical and neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alpha-synuclein cortical Lewy bodies correlate with dementia in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2000-05-01

CLBs detected by alpha-synuclein antibodies in patients with PD are a more sensitive and specific correlate of dementia than the presence of Alzheimer's pathology, which was present in a minority of the cases in this series. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The INNOTEST and INNO-BIA CSF platforms perform equally well in identifying individuals with underlying amyloid plaque pathology. 2 key findings →

Participants: 103 Evidence: moderate

Exogenous α-synuclein fibrils induce Lewy body pathology leading to synaptic dysfunction and neuron death

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neuron 2011-10-01

Inclusions composed of α-synuclein (α-syn), i.e., Lewy bodies (LBs) and Lewy neurites (LNs), define synucleinopathies including Parkinson's disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Loss-of-function mutations in the GBA gene are associated with more severe cognitive impairment in PD, but the nature of these deficits is not well understood and whether common GBA polymorphisms influence cognitive performance in PD is not yet known. 4 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

Low CSF Abeta(1-42) (surrogate for Abeta amyloid load) is more closely linked to the presence of APOE epsilon4 than to clinical status. 3 key findings →

Participants: 399 Evidence: low

Serial MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal aging, MCI, and AD

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2010-07-01

Unlike the CSF biomarkers evaluated, changes in serial structural MRI are correlated with concurrent change on general cognitive and functional indices in impaired subjects, track with clinical disease stage, and are influenced by APOE genotype. 3 key findings →

Participants: 312 Evidence: low

Longitudinal change in CSF Tau and Aβ biomarkers for up to 48 months in ADNI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2013-06-29

The dynamics of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau and Aβ biomarkers over time in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients from prodromal pre-symptomatic to severe stages of dementia have not been clearly defined and recent studies, most of which are cross-sectional, present conflicting findings. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Our study confirms a lack of suitability of CSF C3 and FH as diagnostic biomarkers of AD, but points to their modest potential as prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets in cognitively impaired patients. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) beginning in October 2004, is a 6-year research project that studies changes of cognition, function, brain structure and function, and biomarkers in elderly controls, subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) is the disease protein in frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most prevalent age-related neurodegenerative disorder, is characterized pathologically by the accumulation of beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques and tau-laden neurofibrillary tangles. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cytoplasmic inclusions containing alpha-synuclein (alpha-Syn) fibrils, referred to as Lewy bodies (LBs), are the signature neuropathological hallmarks of Parkinson's disease (PD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Tauopathies, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with tau pathologies, are neurodegenerative diseases characterized by neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) comprising filamentous tau protein. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Here, we review progress by the Penn Biomarker Core in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) toward developing a pathological cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarker signature for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as a biomarker profile that predicts conversion of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or normal control subjects to AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: defining phenotypic diversity through personalized medicine

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2014-12-31

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) comprises two main classes of neurodegenerative diseases characterized by neuronal/glial proteinaceous inclusions (i.e., proteinopathies) including tauopathies (i.e., FTLD-Tau) and TDP-43 proteinopathies (i.e., FTLD-TDP) while other very rare forms of FTLD are known such as FTLD with FUS pathology (FTLD-FUS). 4 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. 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