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 84 studies with an author at University of Nottingham (GB) (page 3 of 4) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 84 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.

With the increase in large multimodal cohorts and high-throughput technologies, the potential for discovering novel biomarkers is no longer limited by data set size. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Such approaches will benefit also from improvements in remote data measurement, whether cognitive (e.g., online), or naturalistic (e.g., watch-based accelerometry). 2 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: moderate

In our dataset search, we identified 108 910 people with a record indicating dementia at any time. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,819 Evidence: moderate

However, most people with dementia live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where dementia risk prediction research is almost non-existent and the ability of current models to predict dementia is unknown. 4 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

DAGs provide visual representations of assumptions made, and provide an objective approach to appropriate statistical adjustments. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment: the Manchester consensus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Age and ageing 2021-01-01

Given considerable variation in diagnostic and therapeutic practice, there is a need for national guidance on the use of neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, cognitive testing, follow-up and diagnostic terminology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The MAINTAIN intervention demonstrated high fidelity in home assessments and intervention delivery, with participants receiving a mean of 15 of the 22 available sessions with a range of 5-25 sessions. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Eight thousand five hundred twenty-one articles were screened, and 75 articles were eligible to be included. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

An update on blood-based biomarkers for non-Alzheimer neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2020-04-22

Cerebrospinal fluid analyses and neuroimaging can identify the underlying pathophysiology at the earliest stage of some neurodegenerative disorders, but do not have the scalability needed for population screening. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Systematic review of differentially abundant proteins in people with Lewy body dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Acta neuropsychiatrica 2025-03-27

Our meta-analyses confirmed significantly lower CSF TAU levels in DLB and CSF SYUA levels in PDD, when compared to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Rare variants should only be investigated in users with a family history of early-onset dementia in a first degree relative. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genetic variability in response to amyloid beta deposition influences Alzheimer's disease risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Brain communications 2019-10-10

Genome-wide association studies of late-onset Alzheimer's disease risk have previously identified genes primarily expressed in microglia that form a transcriptional network. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia, affecting more than 50 million people worldwide with an estimated increase to 139 million people by 2050. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma from individuals with a higher WMH burden was associated with increased BBB disruption in hBMEC. 5 key findings →

Participants: 155 Evidence: low

It is imperative to recognize and mitigate persistent disparities in the COVID‐19 pandemic, particularly pertaining to participation in long‐COVID research. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,046 Evidence: moderate

We identified 51 transcriptome-wide significant (edgeR q < 0.05) DEGs, compared to controls, and 26 transcriptome-wide significant DEGs, compared to PD, in PDD plasma SEV. 5 key findings →

Participants: 15 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