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 576–600 of 963 studies with an author at Harvard University (US) (page 24 of 39) · 28,180 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.

Subjective Cognitive Decline in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Annual review of clinical psychology 2017-05-01

Older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in the absence of objective neuropsychological dysfunction are increasingly viewed as at risk for non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In neurodegenerative diseases, extracellular vesicles (EVs) transfer pathogenic molecules and are consequently involved in disease progression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Converging evidence suggests that the accumulation of cerebral amyloid beta-protein (Abeta) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) reflects an imbalance between the production and degradation of this self-aggregating peptide. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Overexpression of the familial Alzheimer's disease gene Presenilin 2 (PS2) in nerve growth factor-differentiated PC12 cells increased apoptosis induced by trophic factor withdrawal or beta-amyloid. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Sequence of Alzheimer disease biomarker changes in cognitively normal adults: A cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2020-09-01

Cross-sectional data, including CSF analytes, molecular imaging of cerebral fibrillar β-amyloid (Aβ) with PET using the [ 11 C] benzothiazole tracer Pittsburgh compound B (PiB), MRI-based brain structures, and clinical/cognitive outcomes harmonized from 8 studies, collectively involving 3,284 cognitively normal individuals 18 to 101 years of age, were analyzed. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

The relationship between progressive cognitive decline and underlying neuropathology associated with Alzheimer s disease (AD) is a key issue in defining the mechanisms responsible for functional loss. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Delirium screening was performed exclusively in patients aged ≥75 years, accounting for 7.3% of all surgical patients. 5 key findings →

Participants: 23,100 Evidence: low

The final model, which included age, systolic blood pressure >140, atrial fibrillation, and tobacco use, achieved an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.90) in the development cohort (N=143, 62.4±12.6 years, 44% female, 36% non-white race) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) in the validation cohort (N=127, 65.2±16.8 years, 51% female, 34% non-white race), with similar results using WMH measurements derived from cMRI (N=120, p=0.98, AUC=0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.93). 5 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: moderate

Effect of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Control on Markers of Cerebral Small Vessel Disease by Age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Hypertension 2025-10-29

In SPRINT, the overall interaction between age and SBP on WMHv change was not statistically significant ( P =0.18). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 172 Evidence: moderate

This review provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art conceptual review of radiological features, clinical detection and classification challenges, pathophysiology, underlying biological mechanism(s) and risk factors/predictors associated with ARIA. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Among nursing home residents with dementia, discontinuing long-term antipsychotic medication use was associated with lower risks of hospitalization, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections, suggesting clinical benefits in this population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 4,222 Evidence: moderate

Defining a signature of cortical regions of interest preferentially affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology may offer improved sensitivity to early AD compared to hippocampal volume or mesial temporal lobe alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 588 Evidence: moderate

A projected doubling in the global population of people aged ≥60 y by the year 2050 has major health and economic implications, especially in developing regions. 1 key finding →

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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 (3.7% 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