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 51–75 of 172 studies with an author at San Francisco VA Medical Center (US) (page 3 of 7) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 172 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.

MRI and CSF biomarkers in normal, MCI, and AD subjects: predicting future clinical change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-07-01

MRI and CSF provide complimentary predictive information about time to conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease and combination of the 2 provides better prediction than either source alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 399 Evidence: low

Cognitive resilience to apolipoprotein E ε4: contributing factors in black and white older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-03-01

Although APOE ε4 carriers are at high risk for cognitive decline, our findings suggest possible intervention targets, including the enhancement of cognitive reserve and improvement of other psychosocial and health factors, to promote cognitive resilience among black and white APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 2,487 Evidence: moderate

Although beta-amyloid (Abeta) plaques are a primary diagnostic criterion for Alzheimer's disease, this pathology is commonly observed in the brains of non-demented older individuals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Association of plasma beta-amyloid level and cognitive reserve with subsequent cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA 2011-01-01

Lower plasma β-amyloid 42 and 42/40 levels have been associated with incident dementia, but results are conflicting and few have investigated cognitive decline among elders without dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 550 Evidence: low

Development and validation of a prognostic index for 1-year mortality in older adults after hospitalization

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA 2001-06-01

Our prognostic index, which used 6 risk factors known at discharge and a simple additive point system to stratify medical patients 70 years or older according to 1-year mortality after hospitalization, had good discrimination and calibration and generalized well in an independent sample of patients at a different site. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,495 Evidence: moderate

The aim of this study was to evaluate longitudinal associations of multimodal core 1 AD biomarkers with cognition in a cognitively unimpaired (CU) population at increased risk of AD dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate

We sought to develop and evaluate a composite memory score from the neuropsychological battery used in the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In mostly small single-center studies, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with characteristic and progressive reductions in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) measurements of the regional cerebral metabolic rate for glucose (CMRgl). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 280 Evidence: moderate

We compared the predictive value of cerebral perfusion as measured by arterial-spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging (ASL-MRI) with MRI-derived hippocampal volume for determining future cognitive and functional decline and subsequent conversion from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Structural magnetic resonance imaging data are frequently analysed to reveal morphological changes of the human brain in dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In this retrospective study, GAP-43 was measured in participants from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort using an in-house ELISA method, and levels were compared between groups, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. 4 key findings →

Participants: 786 Evidence: moderate

(n = 16,683) had an average age of 69.07 ± 7.34, 72.04% were female, and had an average of 16.66 ± 2.26 years of education. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 16,683 Evidence: moderate

Our goal was to determine the patient and caregiver characteristics associated with the reduction of employment hours in caregivers of frail elders. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,806 Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid and positron emission tomography amyloid-β were measured at baseline in 769 persons [161 healthy controls, 68 subjective memory complaints, 419 mild cognitive impairment and 121 Alzheimer's disease dementia, mean age 72 years (standard deviation 7 years), 47% females] and used to predict diagnosis, APOE ε4 carriage status, cerebral blood flow, cerebrospinal fluid total-tau and phosphorylated-tau levels (cross-sectionally); and hippocampal volume, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography results and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale scores (longitudinally). 2 key findings →

Participants: 769 Evidence: low

CSF neurofilament light differs in neurodegenerative diseases and predicts severity and survival

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Neurology 2014-10-22

CSF NFL differs among different neurodegenerative diseases and is especially high in dementias engaging subcortical brain regions, such as VaD and mixed AD and VaD, but also in frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →

Participants: 478 Evidence: low

The CSF levels of Aβ42 but not total and phosphorylated tau were lower in APOE ε4 carriers compared with noncarriers irrespective of diagnostic group (cohort A). 3 key findings →

Participants: 105 Evidence: moderate

Parietal and occipital lobar CMBs counts were higher in PiB(+) ADCI with moderate WMH than PiB(+) ADCI with minimal WMH, whereas PiB(-) patients with SVCI (ie, "pure" SVCI) showed both lobar and deep CMBs. 3 key findings →

Participants: 226 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