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 28 studies with an author at Mayo Clinic (US) published 2008 (page 1 of 2) · 28,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 28 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.

Volumetric MRI vs clinical predictors of Alzheimer disease in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-01

In moderate stages of amnestic mild cognitive impairment, common cognitive tests provide better predictive accuracy than measures of whole brain, ventricular, entorhinal cortex, or hippocampal volumes for assessing progression to Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →

Participants: 129 Evidence: high

The Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2008-02-26

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a longitudinal multisite observational study of healthy elders, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted after adjusting for age, sex, and educational status. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,969 Evidence: moderate

Novel mutations in TARDBP (TDP-43) in patients with familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. PLoS genetics 2008-09-19

The TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) has been identified as the major disease protein in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin inclusions (FTLD-U), defining a novel class of neurodegenerative conditions: the TDP-43 proteinopathies. 3 key findings →

Participants: 296 Evidence: moderate

Patients and their study partners who were enrolled in a clinical trial supported proxy consent both for themselves and as a matter of policy. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Rates of brain atrophy and/or ventricular enlargement were correlated with declining performance on cognitive scales. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Strengths of the study are that the subjects were randomly selected from a defined population, the majority of the subjects were examined in person, and MCI was defined using published criteria. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,719 Evidence: moderate

Detecting dementia with the mini-mental state examination in highly educated individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2008-07-01

Older patients with a college education who present with complaints of cognitive decline (reported by themselves or others) and score less than 27 on the MMSE are at a greater risk of being diagnosed with dementia and should be referred for a comprehensive dementia evaluation, including formal neuropsychological testing. 2 key findings →

Participants: 307 Evidence: moderate

To design clinical trials for the frontotemporal lobar degenerations (FTLD), knowledge about measurement of disease progression is needed to estimate power and enable the choice of optimal outcome measures. 2 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

In one of the largest brain MRI studies to date, we used tensor-based morphometry (TBM) to create 3D maps of structural atrophy in 676 subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy elderly controls, scanned as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 676 Evidence: low

As one of the earliest structures to degenerate in Alzheimer's disease (AD), the hippocampus is the target of many studies of factors that influence rates of brain degeneration in the elderly. 4 key findings →

Participants: 490 Evidence: low

MRI correlates of neurofibrillary tangle pathology at autopsy: a voxel-based morphometry study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2008-09-01

Patterns of gray matter loss are associated with neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) pathology, specifically with NFT burden at Braak stages III and IV and with Braak stage itself at higher stages. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The MRI and 1H MRS findings in single-domain aMCI are consistent with a pattern similar to that of Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

The objective of this study was to analyze factors influencing the risk and timing of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in central Norway. 4 key findings →

Participants: 376 Evidence: low

Progressive aphasia secondary to Alzheimer disease vs FTLD pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2008-01-01

A temporoparietal pattern of atrophy on MRI in patients with progressive fluent aphasia and relatively preserved processing speed is suggestive of underlying Alzheimer disease pathology rather than frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-only immunoreactive changes. 3 key findings →

Participants: 216 Evidence: low

Prophylactic oophorectomy in premenopausal women and long-term health

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Menopause international 2008-09-01

The potential adverse effects of prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy on heart health, neurological health, bone health and quality of life should be carefully weighed against its potential benefits for cancer risk reduction in women at average risk of ovarian cancer. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Loss-of-function mutations in progranulin (GRN) cause ubiquitin- and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43)-positive frontotemporal dementia (FTLD-U), a progressive neurodegenerative disease affecting approximately 10% of early-onset dementia patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among mild to moderate AD patients, enrolled in an actual clinical trial, these results suggest evidence based guidelines for using the MacCAT-CR understanding subscale to help guide judgments about whether a patient has the capacity to consent. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

↑ 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