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 26–38 of 38 studies with an author at Harvard University (US) of type systematic review or meta-analysis (page 2 of 2) · 32,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 38 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.

We identified 4 novel genetic loci that implicate inflammatory and glial proliferative pathways in the development of WMH in addition to previously proposed ischemic mechanisms. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17 Evidence: high

Targeted clinical application of specific technologies is poised to revolutionize precision care in dementia as these technologies may be used both by patients and caregivers, and at a systems level to provide safe and effective care. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 Evidence: high

A variant within a DNase hypersensitive site 5' of TREM2, rs9357347-C, associates with reduced AD risk and increased TREML1 and TREM2 levels (uncorrected P = 6.3 × 10 -3 and 4.6 × 10 -2 , respectively). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,006 Evidence: high

Hearing Loss and Falls

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery 2025-03-20

A total of 5 071 935 participants were included from 27 studies; approximately 49.2% of participants were female, and 14 studies were conducted in Asia, 7 in North America, 3 in Europe, and 3 in Oceania, represented by Australia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 935 Evidence: high

Accumulating evidence demonstrates that metabolic changes in the brain associated with neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction play an important role in the pathophysiology of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), Lewy body diseases (LBD), and the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) spectrum are defined by the accumulation of specific misfolded protein aggregates. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,600 Evidence: high

In the cohort analyses, 891 incident dementia cases were identified over 166,762 person-years. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 207,981 Evidence: moderate

Evidence suggests that a high concentration of C-reactive protein (CRP) is a cardiovascular risk factor and an important correlate of cognitive disorders and depression. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The preponderance of epidemiologic and tissue compositional studies supports a protective effect of omega-3 EFA intake, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), in mood disorders. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

A total of 16 084 European adults from 8 cohort studies (mean age range, 56.9±12.3-82.1±4.2 years) of the European Eye Epidemiology (E3) consortium. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 16 Evidence: high

The rare TREM2 R47H variant exerts only a modest effect on Alzheimer disease risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2014-09-03

Meta-analysis of the 2 family-based and the 5 case-control cohorts yielded a p value of 0.0029, while the overall summary estimate (using case-control data only) resulted in an odds ratio of 1.67 (95% confidence interval 0.95-2.92) for the association between the TREM2 R47H and increased AD risk. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Strikingly gene-expression, network-based analysis and cell type deconvolution approaches revealed a consistent immune signature in the brain and blood of female AD patients that was absent in males. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Telemedicine and the rural dementia population: A systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Maturitas 2020-09-24

The testing conditions and the accessibility of telemedicine yield inconclusive results as to whether telemedicine can improve the management of dementia in geriatric individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

↑ 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.

1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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

Last updated