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 1–25 of 25 studies with an author at Brigham and Women's Hospital (US) published 2024 · 29,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 25 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.

Updated safety results from phase 3 lecanemab study in early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2024-05-10

Overall, 1795 participants from Core and 1612 participants with at least one dose of lecanemab (Core + OLE) were included. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: high

In a large cohort of cognitively unimpaired individuals enrolled in a Phase 3 clinical trial and companion observational study, these findings confirm that higher baseline levels of amyloid and tau markers are associated with increased rates of cognitive decline and progression to functional impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 583 Evidence: high

APOE3 Christchurch Heterozygosity and Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2024-06-20

Clinical data supported a delayed onset of cognitive impairment in persons who were heterozygous for the APOE3 Ch variant in a kindred with a high prevalence of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,077 Evidence: moderate

AI-based differential diagnosis of dementia etiologies on multimodal data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-07-04

Differential diagnosis of dementia remains a challenge in neurology due to symptom overlap across etiologies, yet it is crucial for formulating early, personalized management strategies. 1 key finding →

Participants: 51,269 Evidence: low

US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic-review Evidence: high

APOE4 homozygozity represents a distinct genetic form of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Nature medicine 2024-05-06

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of APOE4 homozygosity on Alzheimer's disease (AD) by examining its clinical, pathological and biomarker changes to see whether APOE4 homozygotes constitute a distinct, genetically determined form of AD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,297 Evidence: low

Baseline plasma VEGFA and PGF each showed a significant interaction with amyloid burden on prospective cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 317 Evidence: moderate

Traumatic Brain Injury and Risk of Incident Comorbidities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2024-12-12

The study consisted of 20 400 patients (9264 female [45.4%]; 1576 Black [7.7%], 3944 Latinx [19.3%], and 10 480 White [51.4%]), including 5100 patients with mTBI (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years), 5100 patients with msTBI (median [IQR age, 35.0 [25.0-52.0] years), and 10 200 matched patients in the control group (median [IQR] age, 36.0 [25.0-51.0] years). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate

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

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

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

Social determinants of health (SDHs) are the primary drivers of preventable health inequities, and the associations between SDHs and health outcomes among individuals with type 2 diabetes remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate

A summary measure of γ-secretase activity (γ-secretase composite [GSC]) was calculated for each variant and compared with clinical history-derived AAO using correlation analyses. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

Parental History of Memory Impairment and β-Amyloid in Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2024-08-01

Of 4413 individuals (mean [SD] age, 71.27 [4.66] years, 2617 women [59.3%]), mean Aβ-PET was elevated in individuals with history of memory impairment in both parents (n = 455; mean [SD] standardized uptake value ratio [SUVR] = 1.12 [0.19]; Wilcoxon P = 1.1 × 10-5) and in those with only maternal history (n = 1772; mean [SD] SUVR = 1.10 [0.19]; Wilcoxon P = 2.70 × 10-5) compared with those with only paternal history (n = 632; mean [SD] SUVR = 1.08 [0.18]; Wilcoxon P = 1.1 × 10-5) or no family history (n = 1554; mean [SD] SUVR = 1.08 [0.19]; Wilcoxon P = 1.1 × 10-5). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 455 Evidence: high

Biomarker-based staging of Alzheimer disease: rationale and clinical applications

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2024-03-01

Disease staging, whereby the spatial extent and load of brain pathology are used to estimate the severity of Alzheimer disease (AD), is pivotal to the gold-standard neuropathological diagnosis of AD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Participants age 60-85 years deemed cognitively unimpaired were disclosed an elevated or not elevated brain amyloid result by a certified clinician. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,686 Evidence: high

These findings indicate EXT may be more sensitive to Aβ's role in preclinical AD than level and improve targeting of individuals for AD prevention trials. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Since its first description in 1906 by Dr. Alois Alzheimer, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has been the most common type of dementia. 4 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 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