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 351–375 of 401 studies with an author at Brigham and Women's Hospital (US) (page 15 of 17) · 29,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 401 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.

Amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides, starting with pyroglutamate at the third residue (pyroGlu-3 Aβ), are a major species deposited in the brain of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Iron influx increases the translation of the Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein (APP) via an iron-responsive element (IRE) RNA stem loop in its 5'-untranslated region. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent genetic studies on Alzheimer's disease (AD) have brought microglia under the spotlight, as loci associated with AD risk are enriched in genes expressed in microglia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

25 older individuals with MCI performed a visual scene encoding task during fMRI scanning, and were followed clinically for at least 4 years after scanning. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the LA cohort only, higher WMHs load was associated with greater GM atrophy across all groups (HCs, AD, bvFTD), with a specific neurodegenerative pattern involving orbitofrontal, cingulate, and temporal areas. 5 key findings →

Participants: 402 Evidence: moderate

A total of 30 variants were overrepresented in four pathways: presenilin/Alzheimer disease, cadherin/WNT signaling, gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor, and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) signaling. 5 key findings →

Participants: 204 Evidence: low

(cobalamin)-dependent pathways. Supplementation of B vitamins has been shown to effectively reduce plasma homocysteine levels. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The ACoE's overall cognitive assessments were significantly reliable (ICC [intraclass correlation coefficient]=0.89; P<.001). 5 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: high

Amyloid β (Aβ) damages neurons and triggers microglial inflammatory activation in the Alzheimer disease (AD) brain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We used cross-sectional data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from 1999 to 2018 linked to National Death Index records. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

PurposeDelirium is a common yet preventable complication of hospitalization, surgery and illness that is associated with poor outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We evaluated whether insomnia symptom severity was associated with cognitive function, and whether this relationship was modified by biomarkers associated with Alzheimer's disease risk. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Early NPS burden as well as NPS severity progression rate, independently of cognitive status, might be useful clinical metrics and may help predict underlying pathological diagnoses. 3 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: low

Under-reporting of cardiovascular events in the rofecoxib Alzheimer disease studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. American heart journal 2012-07-03

In the 3 studies combined, the data indicated that rofecoxib more than tripled the risk of confirmed CVT death (risk ratio = 3.57 [1.48-9.72], P = .004). 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

The percentage of unmetabolized 18 F-T807 in plasma followed a single exponential with a half-life of 17.0 ± 4.2 min. Metabolite-corrected plasma radioactivity concentration fit a biexponential (half-lives, 18.1 ± 5.8 and 2.4 ± 0.5 min). 18 F-T807 in gray matter peaked quickly (SUV > 2 at ∼5 min). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD)-modifying therapies are approved for treatment of early-symptomatic AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 200 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 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