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 26–50 of 94 studies with an author at University of Geneva (CH) (page 2 of 4) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 94 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.

Presymptomatic cognitive and neuroanatomical changes in genetic frontotemporal dementia in the Genetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI) study: a cross-sectional analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2015-02-04

For neuropsychology measures, we noted the earliest significant differences between mutation carriers and non-carriers 5 years before expected onset, when differences were significant for all measures except for tests of immediate recall and verbal fluency. 2 key findings →

Participants: 220 Evidence: low

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

Integrating longitudinal information in hippocampal volume measurements for the early detection of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. NeuroImage 2015-10-26

Structural MRI measures for monitoring Alzheimer's Disease (AD) progression are becoming instrumental in the clinical practice, and more so in the context of longitudinal studies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 460 Evidence: moderate

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

Research priorities to reduce the global burden of dementia by 2025

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2016-10-11

At the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia in March, 2015, 160 delegates, including representatives from 80 WHO Member States and four UN agencies, agreed on a call for action to reduce the global burden of dementia by fostering a collective effort to advance research. 5 key findings →

Participants: 201 Evidence: low

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

Biomarker-based prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment (ABIDE): a modelling study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2019-09-13

The models could aid clinicians in the interpretation of CSF biomarker and hippocampal volume results in individuals with MCI, and help research and clinical settings to prepare for a future of precision medicine in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate

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

Reality orientation therapy combined with cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer's disease: randomised controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 2005-11-01

Reality orientation therapy combined with cholinesterase inhibitors has not been evaluated in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: low

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

Contrasting Adult and Pediatric Populations in a Cohort of At-Risk Relatives in The T1D TrialNet Pathway to Prevention Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Diabetes Care 2025-07-22

Adults were more likely than children to screen positive for a single autoantibody (4.0% vs. 2.6%) but less likely for multiple autoantibodies (0.83% vs. 2.8%; P < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Participants: 135,914 Evidence: low

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

The probabilistic model of Alzheimer disease: the amyloid hypothesis revised

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neuroscience 2021-11-23

The current conceptualization of Alzheimer disease (AD) is driven by the amyloid hypothesis, in which a deterministic chain of events leads from amyloid deposition and then tau deposition to neurodegeneration and progressive cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A metabolite-based machine learning approach to diagnose Alzheimer-type dementia in blood: Results from the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer disease biomarker discovery cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2019-12-18

This study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. 4 key findings →

Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate

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

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial on cannabinoid-based medication for behavioural disorders in old patients with severe dementia: the study results

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Age and ageing 2026-08-03

In this real-life crossover study, THC/CBD oil did not show superiority over placebo in reducing agitation in severe dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 25 Evidence: null result

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

Mild cognitive impairment with suspected nonamyloid pathology (SNAP): Prediction of progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2015-01-07

The proportion of progressors was 11% (8/41), 34% (14/41), 56% (19/34), and 71% (60/85) in A-N-, A+N-, SNAP, and A+N+, respectively; the proportion of APOE ε4 carriers was 29%, 70%, 31%, and 71%, respectively, with the SNAP group featuring a significantly different proportion than both A+N- and A+N+ groups (p ≤ 0.005). 2 key findings →

Participants: 201 Evidence: low

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

Modifiable Risk Factors for Prevention of Dementia in Midlife, Late Life and the Oldest-Old: Validation of the LIBRA Index

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2017-01-01

LIBRA might be a useful tool to identify individuals for primary prevention interventions of dementia in midlife, and maybe in late life, but not in the oldest-old. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,256 Evidence: low

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

Dementia prevention in memory clinics: recommendations from the European task force for brain health services

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. The Lancet regional health. Europe 2023-01-31

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Digital biomarker-based individualized prognosis for people at risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2020-08-19

Digital biomarker prognostic models can be a useful tool to assist large-scale population screening for the early detection of cognitive impairment and patient monitoring over time. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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