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 76–100 of 408 studies with an author at University of Southern California (US) (page 4 of 17) · 28,180 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.

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.

This study found that a high-intensity multidomain lifestyle intervention did not affect brain biomarker trajectories and was not associated with Aβ pathology, but older adults with specific at-risk brain characteristics, including lower baseline HC volume, showed a greater cognitive benefit of the structured intervention. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 983 Evidence: moderate

In DIAD, solanezumab was not associated with ARIA. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

The trial did not show efficacy of GbE, however, the lack of decline of the placebo patients may have compromised the sensitivity of the trial to detect a treatment effect. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

All treatment groups showed improvement in measures of psychosis without significant differences between them when planned comparisons were performed. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

In elderly persons, antipsychotic drugs are clinically prescribed off-label for a number of disorders outside of their Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

These studies fundamentally deepen our understanding of AD progression and its underlying genetic basis, which in turn informs and improves clinical trial design. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Regions with early signs of elevated amyloid β uptake were used to form an early, focal composite and compared to a commonly used global composite, in a separate validation sample. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 279 Evidence: moderate

Mid- and late-life diabetes in relation to the risk of dementia: a population-based twin study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Diabetes 2008-10-24

We aimed to verify the association between diabetes and the risk of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and vascular dementia in twins and to explore whether genetic and early-life environmental factors could contribute to this association. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 13,693 Evidence: moderate

Sleep duration is linked to amyloid-β clearance while physical activity is associated with brain volume maintenance. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,322 Evidence: high

Considering several covariates together allowed the identification of responders. 2 key findings →

Participants: 186 Evidence: low

Treatment with sertraline in patients with dAD is not associated with greater improvement in cognition at week 24 than treatment with placebo. 2 key findings →

Participants: 67 Evidence: high

MarkVCID2 enrolled 1883 individuals age 73.4 ± 7.5 years, 65.0% female, 24.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% non-Hispanic Black. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,883 Evidence: moderate

The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the best established genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease in later life, with the ε4 allele conferring higher risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 9,496 Evidence: moderate

Disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are likely to be most beneficial when initiated in the presymptomatic phase. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate

Differential eligibility may contribute to underrepresentation of some minoritized racial and ethnic groups in early AD trials. 2 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: high

The use of AC medication was associated with increased brain atrophy and dysfunction and clinical decline. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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