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 101–125 of 400 studies with an author at Brigham and Women's Hospital (US) (page 5 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.

Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. The Lancet Neurology 2014-05-18

This Position Paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of the International Working Group research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework for Alzheimer's disease.

Evidence: low

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 preclinical Alzheimer cognitive composite: measuring amyloid-related decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2014-08-01

In ADNI, Aβ-positive participants showed more decline than did Aβ-negative participants with regard to the ADCS-PACC score at 24 months (mean [SE] difference, -1.239 [0.522] [95% CI, -2.263 to -0.215]; P = .02). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Early intervention to reduce caregiving behavioral burden and enhance family support and promote healthier behaviors of bereaved AD caregivers may decrease the risk of syndromal or syndromal-becoming-threshold level depression after loss. 3 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: high

Disclosure of pleiotropic information did not increase anxiety or depression and may have decreased distress among persons at increased risk for 2 conditions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

There were no statistical differences between the placebo or solanezumab groups in CDR-G, CDR-SB, specific CDR boxes or CDR composite scores over the course of the trial. 3 key findings →

Participants: 583 Evidence: high

Older, healthy women with decreased circadian activity rhythm amplitude and robustness, and delayed rhythms have increased odds of developing dementia and MCI. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

We developed machine learning prediction models for post-operative delirium that performed better than chance and are comparable with traditional stepwise logistic regression. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 134 Evidence: moderate

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

The Amyloid Hypothesis of Alzheimer's Disease: Progress and Problems on the Road to Therapeutics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Science 2002-07-19

It has been more than 10 years since it was first proposed that the neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) may be caused by deposition of amyloid beta-peptide (Abeta) in plaques in brain tissue. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Encoding-task fMRI was successfully implemented in a single-site, 24-week, AD randomized controlled trial. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high

Our pilot studies (National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1A) have shown that MHB is feasible, acceptable, and associated with improvement in lifestyle behavior and cognitive outcomes. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 225 Evidence: high

We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

TDP-43 loss and ALS-risk SNPs drive mis-splicing and depletion of UNC13A

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Nature 2022-02-23

Variants of UNC13A, a critical gene for synapse function, increase the risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia 1-3 , two related neurodegenerative diseases defined by mislocalization of the RNA-binding protein TDP-43 4,5 . 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias are a major public health challenge and present a therapeutic imperative for which we need additional insight into molecular pathogenesis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dietary antioxidants and long-term risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-07-01

The Rotterdam Study previously found that higher dietary intakes of vitamins E and C related to lower risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease (AD) over 6 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,395 Evidence: moderate

The pooled sample comprised 4657 participants (30% women) aged ≥ 60 years (mean age was 74 years at sleep assessment). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,374 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 28,580 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