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

29,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 251–275 of 408 studies with an author at University of Southern California (US) (page 11 of 17) · 29,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 408 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; 14,855 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.

Predicting Short-term MCI-to-AD Progression Using Imaging, CSF, Genetic Factors, Cognitive Resilience, and Demographics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Scientific reports 2019-02-19

In the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum, the prodromal state of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) precedes AD dementia and identifying MCI individuals at risk of progression is important for clinical management. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Extrapyramidal signs and psychiatric symptoms predict faster cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Archives of neurology 1994-07-01

A cohort of patients was followed up longitudinally and the likelihood of arriving at two cognitive end points was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model and eight explanatory variables. 4 key findings →

Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Trends in Incident Dementia Diagnosis Before and After Medicare Risk Adjustment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2023-12-15

This cohort study examines rates of new diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementias among beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage plans vs traditional Medicare from 2016 through 2020. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

The Area Deprivation Index: A novel tool for harmonizable risk assessment in Alzheimer's disease research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions 2020-01-01

Participants in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (n = 156) were younger, more often female, and less often college-educated or white than those in less disadvantaged neighborhoods (n = 1963). 3 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: low

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

Health and Aging Brain Study–Health Disparities (HABS‐HD) methods and partner characteristics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions 2025-07-01

The characteristics of the cohort revealed significant groupwise differences in age, education, sex, and cognitive diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Associations of Mid‐to‐Late Life Neighborhood Disadvantage with Cognitive Trajectories and Dementia Outcomes in the Health and Retirement Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

The sample (n = 26,728) was equally distributed across gender (55.1% women) and education (50.8% completed HS/GED diploma), and 30% came from under-represented racial/ethnic groups. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26,728 Evidence: low

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

Prevalence of frailty and its association with cognition in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the A4 study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2026-01-01

Four thousand four hundred eighty-six participants were included (mean age 71.3 ± 4.7 years, 30% participants Aβ+, 59% female). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

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

Cross‐Sectional Comparison of Structural MRI Markers of Impairment in a Diverse Cohort of Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Human Brain Mapping 2025-01-27

Higher BAG (pDeepBrainNet = 0.0002; pBrainAgeR = 0.00117) and lower hippocampal volume (p = 0.0015) and cortical thickness (p < 0.0001) were associated with worse clinical status (higher CDR). 2 key findings →

Participants: 2,870 Evidence: low

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

Primary Care Cost Sharing in Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. JAMA Health Forum 2026-07-10

Secondary outcomes included plan- and county-level factors associated with offering this benefit in 2025, estimated using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression with county-level random intercepts. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

Research criteria for subcortical vascular dementia in clinical trials

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of neural transmission. Supplementum 2000-01-01

Vascular dementia (VaD) incorporate different vascular mechanisms and changes in the brain, and have different causes and clinical manifestations. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Targeting innate immunity for neurodegenerative disorders of the central nervous system

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of neurochemistry 2016-09-01

Neuroinflammation is critically involved in numerous neurodegenerative diseases, and key signaling steps of innate immune activation hence represent promising therapeutic targets. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Impaired lung function is associated with elevated blood biomarkers of AD/ADRD: unraveling the interplay with risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Scientific reports 2026-04-14

Impaired lung function (ILF) has been associated with cognitive decline and dementia risk in multiple cohorts, yet the role of circulating Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers in this relationship is not well understood. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,072 Evidence: low

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

Interdisciplinary Aging Research to Address Health Disparities in Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias: A Scientific Training Program for Early-Career Scholars

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2022-10-21

According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA), there are more than 70 associated genes or genetic areas associated with Alzheimer’s when 20 years ago, we knew of only four (Hodes, 2022). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 42 Evidence: moderate

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

Balancing Burdens and Benefits: Ethical Issues of Off‐Label Prescription Pharmaceutical Use

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. PM&R 2013-10-01

He has even given a threshold outlining when the practice of medicine ends versus when the practice of unethical, non–institutional review board approved research begins. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Microglia‐specific Alzheimer's disease polygenic risk score predicts longitudinal increase in plasma tau and faster cognitive decline in cognitively unimpaired older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We included 1179 CU subjects (n = 474 females (40%), 70.9 ± 4.5 years old) of European descent who had pTau217 and PACC. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 474 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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