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 1–18 of 18 studies with an author at Boston University (US) in JAMA Network Open · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 18 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.

Goals-of-care documentation during the intervention phase occurred among 3744 of 6023 patients (62.2%) compared with 2396 of 4779 patients (50.1%) in the usual care phase (P Conclusions and relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial of older adults, a GOC video intervention delivered by PCEs resulted in higher rates of GOC documentation compared with usual care, including among Black or African American individuals, Hispanic or Latino individuals, non-English speakers, and people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. 3 key findings →

Participants: 802 Evidence: high

Compared with no sensory impairment, DSI was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.60; 95% CI, 1.66-2.06; P Conclusions and relevance In this cohort study, DSI was associated with increased risk of dementia, particularly AD. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

There were 21 603 to 51 236 patients per year (total for 2010-2020, 381 488 patients) in the OAC-eligible incident AF cohort (mean [SD] age, 77.2 [6.1] to 77.4 [6.8] years; 13 871 [51.8%] to 22 901 [49.8%] women). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 236 Evidence: moderate

Dementia risk may be attenuated by physical activity (PA); however, the specific activity levels optimal for dementia prevention are unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,604 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer Dementia Among Individuals With Down Syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA network open 2024-09-03

There were 132 720 unique adults with Down syndrome from 2011 to 2019: 79 578 (53.2%) were male, 17 090 (11.7%) were non-Hispanic Black, 20 777 (15.7%) were Hispanic, 101 120 (68.8%) were non-Hispanic White, and 47 692 (23.3%) had ever had an Alzheimer dementia diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate

Visual Impairment, Eye Conditions, and Diagnoses of Neurodegeneration and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-07-01

In this cohort and MR study of UK Biobank participants, cataracts were associated with increased risk of dementia, especially vascular dementia, and reduced total brain volumes. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 304,953 Evidence: moderate

Hearing Loss, Brain Structure, Cognition, and Dementia Risk in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-11-05

Sample 1 included 1656 participants (mean [range] age, 58.1 [29.7-85.6] years; 903 female [54.5%]), and sample 2 included 935 participants (mean [range] age, 67.6 [60.0-85.6] years; 518 female [55.4%]). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,656 Evidence: moderate

Detection Bias in EHR-Based Research on Clinical Exposures and Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-04-23

Among 228 392 participants from UKB (n = 137 374; mean [SD] age at baseline, 62.5 [4.1] years; 53.8% female) and AOU (n = 91 018; mean [SD] age at baseline, 66.9 [7.8] years; 57.1% female), those with a history of a clinical exposure at baseline had higher dementia incidence rates compared with those without such history. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 137 Evidence: moderate

Association of Chronic Low-grade Inflammation With Risk of Alzheimer Disease in ApoE4 Carriers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. JAMA network open 2018-10-05

Median (interquartile range) CRP levels increased with mean (SD) age (43.3 [9.6] years, 0.95 mg/L [0.40-2.35 mg/L] vs 59.1 [9.6] years, 2.04 mg/L [0.93-4.75 mg/L] vs 61.6 [9.5] years, 2.21 mg/L [1.05-5.12 mg/L]; P Conclusions and relevance In this study, peripheral chronic low-grade inflammation in participants with ApoE4 was associated with shortened latency for onset of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Physical Activity Over the Adult Life Course and Risk of Dementia in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-11-19

This study included 1526 early adult-life (mean [SD] age, 36.7 [4.7] years; 821 [53.8%] female), 1943 midlife (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [5.8] years; 1010 [52.0%] female), and 885 late-life (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [4.5] years; 473 [53.4%] female) participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,526 Evidence: moderate

Childhood Loneliness and Cognitive Decline and Dementia Risk in Middle-Aged and Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-09-12

Among 13 592 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.34 [9.39] years; 7175 [52.8%] female), 6525 (48.0%) experienced possible childhood loneliness, and 565 (4.2%) reported childhood loneliness. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 592 Evidence: moderate

Some of the unexplained heritability of Alzheimer disease (AD) may be due to rare variants whose effects are not captured in genome-wide association studies because very large samples are needed to observe statistically significant associations. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,617 Evidence: low

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 in Participants at Risk for Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA network open 2026-07-01

In vivo biomarkers for detecting neuropathologies from repetitive head impacts (RHI), including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), are needed. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 231 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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