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 201–225 of 696 studies with an author at Mayo Clinic (US) (page 9 of 28) · 28,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

Of 3894 participants, 1671 underwent PET imaging and were included in the study; 2198 did not undergo imaging, and 25 were excluded for other reasons. 2 key findings →

Participants: 3,894 Evidence: low

We aimed to determine the regional pattern of brain atrophy associated with the C9ORF72 gene mutation, and to determine which regions best differentiate C9ORF72 from subjects with mutations in tau and progranulin, and from sporadic frontotemporal dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 76 Evidence: low

Incomplete penetrance was suggested in two kindreds, and the youngest generation had significantly earlier age of onset (>10 years) compared with the next oldest generation in 11 kindreds. 2 key findings →

Participants: 63 Evidence: low

We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low

Vascular burden and Alzheimer disease pathologic progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2012-09-12

Increased WMHs are associated with aging, decreased glucose metabolism, and decline in executive function but do not affect AD-specific pathologic progression, suggesting that the vascular contribution to dementia is probably additive although not necessarily independent of the amyloid pathway. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Neuronal loss correlates with but exceeds neurofibrillary tangles in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 1997-01-01

To assess the relationship between dementia, neuronal loss, and neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease (AD), we counted the number of neurons, senile plaques, and neurofibrillary tangles in a high-order association cortex. 1 key finding →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

Telemental health (TMH) for older patients has the potential to increase access to geriatric specialists, reduce travel times for patients and providers, and reduce ever growing healthcare costs. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Increased risk of cognitive impairment or dementia in women who underwent oophorectomy before menopause

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2007-08-29

Women who underwent either unilateral or bilateral oophorectomy before the onset of menopause had an increased risk of cognitive impairment or dementia compared to referent women (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.46; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.90; adjusted for education, type of interview, and history of depression). 2 key findings →

Participants: 813 Evidence: moderate

Mutations in the progranulin gene (GRN) are an important cause of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with ubiquitin and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP43)-positive pathology. 3 key findings →

Participants: 219 Evidence: low

There were insufficient data to make any recommendations regarding cognitive screening of asymptomatic individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease in the community

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2013-08-01

The NIA-AA criteria apply to most MCI subjects in both the community and clinical trials settings; however, a sizeable proportion of subjects had conflicting biomarkers, which may be very important and need to be explored. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Several clinical trials are planned for familial forms of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (f-FTLD). 4 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

Amyloid deposition, hypometabolism, and longitudinal cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2012-10-01

Using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) population, we examined (1) cross-sectional relationships between amyloid deposition, hypometabolism, and cognition, and (2) associations between amyloid and hypometabolism measurements and longitudinal cognitive measurements. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

There is increasing evidence that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in individuals with unimpaired performance on cognitive tests may represent the first symptomatic manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Interestingly, we found no consistent differences in learning and memory performance between high versus low PiB cognitively normal or amnestic MCI subjects. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature Reviews Disease Primers 2021-05-13

This Primer conceptualizes Alzheimer disease (AD) as a genetic and sporadic neurodegenerative disorder driven by a complex interplay between loss of synaptic homeostasis and endosomal/lysosomal clearance pathway dysfunction, in which Aβ and tau products play key roles. 4 key findings →

Age-related changes in the default mode network are more advanced in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2011-10-05

The results of this study indicate that the DMN abnormalities observed in patients with AD represent an accelerated aging pattern of connectivity compared with matched controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

Association of Apolipoprotein E ε4 With Transactive Response DNA-Binding Protein 43

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2018-11-01

The 751 study participants were older (median age [interquartile range], 87 years [51-105 years]), 395 (54%) were women, and 324 (44%) were APOE ε4 carriers. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 604 Evidence: low

Molecular genetic studies of familial cases of FTLD-U have shown that mutations in the progranulin (PGRN) gene are a major genetic cause of FTLD-U. Thus, familial TDP-43 proteinopathy is associated with defects in multiple genes, and molecular genetics is required in these cases to correctly identify the causative gene defect. 3 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.

1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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