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 376–400 of 408 studies with an author at University of Southern California (US) (page 16 of 17) · 28,580 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; 14,058 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.

Multimorbidity, Cognition, and Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers: A Pathway Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, APOE ε4, and physical activity, a greater multimorbidity burden (per 3 additional conditions) was associated with worse overall cognition (standardized β = -0.074, 95%CI -0.104 to -0.043) and biomarkers indicative of greater AD pathology, neurodegeneration, and SVD (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Protection against APOE4-associated phenotypes with the longevity-promoting intervention 17α-estradiol in middle-aged male mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Communications Medicine 2025-06-10

The apolipoprotein ε4 allele (APOE4) is associated with decreased longevity and increased vulnerability to age-related declines and disorders across multiple systems. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

AT(N) Biomarkers Across Modalities in the Pathways Between Multimorbidity and Cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, APOE ε4, and physical activity, a greater multimorbidity burden (per 3 additional conditions) was associated with worse overall cognition (standardized β =-0.074, 95%CI -0.104 to -0.043) and biomarkers indicative of greater AD pathology, neurodegeneration, and SVD (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Hereditary deficiencies in complement C5 are associated with intensified neurodegenerative responses that implicate new roles for the C-system in neuronal and astrocytic functions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Neurobiology of disease 1996-01-01

Possible roles of the complement (C) system in the normal and injured brain were explored with inbred mice that carried a frameshift mutation in the C5 gene. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Effects of age on gene expression during estrogen-induced synaptic sprouting in the female rat

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Experimental neurology 2000-09-01

Age and estrogen treatment influenced fiber outgrowth and compensatory neuronal sprouting after unilateral entorhinal cortex lesions (ECL) which model Alzheimer disease-like deafferentation in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Astrocytic estrogen receptors and impaired neurotrophic responses in a rat model of perimenopause

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2015-09-29

In a perimenopausal model of middle-aged rats, the astrocyte estrogen receptor-alpha (ERa): ER-beta (ERb) ratio increased with the onset of acyclicity (constant estrus, CE) in association with impaired neurotrophic responses to estradiol (E2). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Estimates of diagnosed dementia prevalence and incidence among diverse beneficiaries in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2023-12-01

Lower diagnosed dementia rates in MA compared to TM may exacerbate racial/ethnic disparities in diagnosed dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Disparities in High-Risk Medication Use—Implications for Health Equity and Deprescribing Practices

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-04-14

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use-defined as the use of high-risk medications that can increase the risk of adverse events such as physical, cognitive, and functional decline; delirium; hospitalizations; and mortality-remains a significant concern in older adults in the US.Numerous guidelines, including the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria 1 and the STOPP criteria, 2 define PIMs as medications for which the risk of adverse effects outweighs potential benefits or are inappropriate for specific populations or disease states, such dementia or kidney disease.PIM use may be particularly harmful in populations experiencing other health care disparities, as communities experiencing other consequences of health care inequity, including limited access to physicians or pharmacies, greater financial stress, and a higher comorbidity burden, may experience disproportionate effects from the adverse consequences of PIM use. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Clinical progression on CDR‐SB©: Progression‐free time at each 0.5 unit level in dominantly inherited and sporadic Alzheimer's disease populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-09-01

PFT is longer at CDR-SB ≤ 2.0 (1-2 years) and shorter at CDR-SB ≥ 5 (≤ 0.33) in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort. 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: moderate

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

Promoting Brain Health in the Context of Normal Aging and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Tutorial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. American journal of speech-language pathology 2026-06-18

There are significant opportunities for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to play important roles in the primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) beyond current practices. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD AMENITIES AND RISK OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION AMONG PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2023-12-01

This may be due to caregiving challenges associated with the behavioral symptoms PWD exhibit and their reduced capacities to perform daily tasks. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,366 Evidence: low

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

Changes to Medicare Advantage Risk Adjustment and Dementia Diagnosis in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2024-12-01

Financial incentives to detect dementia resulted in more dementia diagnoses, particularly among persons at high risk of dementia and of undetected dementia but also raises concerns about diagnostic upcoding and the potential for over‐diagnosis. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Effects of sexual differentiation and APOE genotype on the development of Alzheimer-related pathology in female EFAD mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Biology of Sex Differences 2026-08-12

These findings suggest that sexual differentiation in early life has modest effects on adult development of AD in females, a relationship that appeared stronger in the context of APOE4 . 4 key findings →

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