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 1–23 of 23 studies with an author at University of Connecticut (US) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 23 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.

DNA methylation algorithms are increasingly used to estimate biological aging; however, how these proposed measures of whole-organism biological aging relate to aging in the brain is not known. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 649 Evidence: moderate

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

These findings support the view that chronic financial pressures associated with low income exert a weathering effect that results in premature aging. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) are hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), causing substantial distress for both people with dementia and their caregivers, and contributing to early institutionalization. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

By 12 months after discharge, of those discharged with new or additional ADL disability, 41.3% died, 28.6% were alive but had not recovered to baseline function, and 30.1% were at baseline function. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Large pre-trained models, also known as foundation models (FMs), are trained in a task-agnostic manner on large-scale data and can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks by fine-tuning, few-shot, or even zero-shot learning. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

As different signature changes associated with particular stages of disease burden are identified and validated, we anticipate expanded application of qEEG as a reliable and sensitive biomarker(s) of MCI and early Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Per-dyad mean cost savings at 12 months were $2 354 for those who received COPE with a mean difference-in-difference of -$6 667 versus HCBS alone (95% CI: -$15 473, $2 734; not statistically significant). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mutations in the TARDBP gene encoding TDP-43 protein are linked to loss of function in neurons and familial frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report: Tools to Advance Health Equity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of Public Health in the Deep South 2024-08-09

The Mississippi Healthy Aging Data Report (see healthyagingdatareports.org) has helped policymakers, service providers, and advocates better understand the status of healthy aging in Mississippi. 5 key findings →

Participants: 663,581 Evidence: low

Participants reported routine screening for cognitive impairment only in the context of the Medicare annual wellness visit and generally avoided routine screening because of limited treatment options to support patients, such as poor access to geriatrics/neuropsychiatric services. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

3D Team Care Management Trial: Study Design Features and Participant Characteristics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2020-12-01

This clinical trial was designed in partnership with a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, with the goal of comparing two care management approaches for its MA policyholders age >65 living with cognitive vulnerability. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Caregiver Identity and Resilience Across and Beyond Dementia Care: A Qualitative Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

With increasing dementia prevalence and reliance on spousal care partners, understanding how caregiving identity evolves and how resilience is fostered across the care trajectory is crucial. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alcohol use disorder accelerates age-related cognitive decline

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

ObjectiveTo investigate whether a lifetime history of DSM-5 AUD and correlated indices of alcohol consumption are associated with accelerated age-related cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,421 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 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