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

28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 176–200 of 389 studies with an author at Boston University (US) (page 8 of 16) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 389 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

Authors

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

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 14,058 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.

A multiancestry polygenic risk score for Alzheimer's disease is associated with cognitive decline and neuropathological hallmarks in diverse populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Nature genetics 2026-08-27

Previously derived polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) perform inconsistently across diverse ancestries. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Evidence: high

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

Antisense transcripts of the expanded C9ORF72 hexanucleotide repeat form nuclear RNA foci and undergo repeat-associated non-ATG translation in c9FTD/ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2013-10-16

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are devastating neurodegenerative disorders with clinical, genetic, and neuropathological overlap. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Early-Onset Alzheimer Disease and Candidate Risk Genes Involved in Endolysosomal Transport

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2017-09-01

Mutations in APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 lead to early-onset Alzheimer disease (EOAD) but account for only approximately 11% of EOAD overall, leaving most of the genetic risk for the most severe form of Alzheimer disease unexplained. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

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

Susceptibility of the conventional criteria for mild cognitive impairment to false-positive diagnostic errors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2014-05-22

Four subtypes emerged: (1) dysnomic (n = 153), (2) dysexecutive (n = 102), (3) amnestic (n = 288), and (4) cluster-derived normal (n = 282) who performed within normal limits on cognitive testing. 4 key findings →

Participants: 153 Evidence: moderate

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

Association of Ideal Cardiovascular Health With Vascular Brain Injury and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Stroke 2016-04-12

The American Heart Association developed the ideal cardiovascular health (CVH) index as a simple tool to promote CVH; yet, its association with brain atrophy and dementia remains unexamined. 4 key findings →

Participants: 2,750 Evidence: moderate

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

Cardiovascular health, genetic risk, and risk of dementia in the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2020-07-20

We categorized CVH on the basis of the American Heart Association Ideal CVH Index and genetic risk through a genetic risk score (GRS) of common genetic variants and the APOE ε4 genotype in 1,211 Framingham Heart Study (FHS) offspring cohort participants. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

MRI-Visible Perivascular Spaces and Risk of Incident Dementia: The Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2022-12-05

Perivascular spaces (PVS) visible on MRI scans may represent key aspects in the pathophysiology of stroke and dementia, including cerebral small vessel disease and glymphatic dysfunction. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Accelerometer-determined physical activity and cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults from two generations of the Framingham Heart Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2019-10-15

In each cohort, achieving just 10-21.4 min/day moderate-to-vigorous PA related to better executive function ( P P = .02). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,861 Evidence: moderate

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

Long‐Term Incidence of Dementia Following Transient Ischemic Attack: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Journal of the American Heart Association 2025-07-04

We found no significant difference in dementia incidence over a 20‐year follow‐up period compared with matched TIA‐free controls. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 297 Evidence: high

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

APOE-ε4 carriership and dementia risk over 10 years among Asian American and White older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2026-07

Despite differences in prevalence of APOE-ε4, its association with dementia risk was similar across Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and non-Latino White participants. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 46,325 Evidence: moderate

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

Brain Imaging and Blood Biomarker Abnormalities in Children With Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-08-01

Similar to findings in adult mutation carriers, in the later preclinical and clinical stages of ADAD, mutation-carrying children were distinguished from control individuals by significantly higher plasma Aβ1-42 levels (mean [SD]: carriers, 18.8 [5.1] pg/mL and noncarriers, 13.1 [3.2] pg/mL; P Conclusions and relevance Children at genetic risk for ADAD have functional and structural brain changes and abnormal levels of plasma Aβ1-42. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% 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