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 276–300 of 400 studies with an author at Brigham and Women's Hospital (US) (page 12 of 16) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 400 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.

Subjective Cognitive Decline in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Annual review of clinical psychology 2017-05-01

Older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in the absence of objective neuropsychological dysfunction are increasingly viewed as at risk for non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In neurodegenerative diseases, extracellular vesicles (EVs) transfer pathogenic molecules and are consequently involved in disease progression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Converging evidence suggests that the accumulation of cerebral amyloid beta-protein (Abeta) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) reflects an imbalance between the production and degradation of this self-aggregating peptide. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The 21-point Brain Care Score (BCS) was developed through a modified Delphi process in partnership with practitioners and patients to promote behavior changes and lifestyle choices in order to sustainably reduce the risk of dementia and stroke. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Delirium screening was performed exclusively in patients aged ≥75 years, accounting for 7.3% of all surgical patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 23,100 Evidence: low

This review provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art conceptual review of radiological features, clinical detection and classification challenges, pathophysiology, underlying biological mechanism(s) and risk factors/predictors associated with ARIA. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Among nursing home residents with dementia, discontinuing long-term antipsychotic medication use was associated with lower risks of hospitalization, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections, suggesting clinical benefits in this population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 4,222 Evidence: moderate

Research increasingly suggests that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in older adults, in the absence of objective cognitive dysfunction or depression, may be a harbinger of non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is driven by vascular Aβ (amyloid-beta) deposition, which can be detected as reduced Aβ species in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 31 Evidence: low

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 in Participants at Risk for Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. JAMA network open 2026-07-01

In vivo biomarkers for detecting neuropathologies from repetitive head impacts (RHI), including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), are needed. 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 231 Evidence: moderate

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Health Insurance Database in South Korea. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Although pathogenic variants in PSEN1 leading to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) are highly penetrant, substantial interindividual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change are observed in ADAD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Mild to moderate Alzheimer dementia with insufficient neuropathological changes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2014-04-08

Recently, ~16% of participants in an anti-Aβ passive immunotherapy trial for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) had a negative baseline amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scan. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Our findings suggest that the onset of dementia-related syndromes may be initiated by repetitive cerebral concussions in professional football players. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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