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 226–250 of 612 studies with an author at Johns Hopkins University (US) (page 10 of 25) · 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.

Intracranial atherosclerosis and dementia: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2017-03-22

From 2011 to 2013, 1,744 participants completed high-resolution vessel wall MRI from the population-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study by a sampling strategy that allowed weighting back to the cohort. 4 key findings →

Participants: 291 Evidence: moderate

Incident Hearing Loss and Comorbidity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery 2018-11-12

After cohort matching, 48% of participants were women (n = 74 464), 61% were white (n = 93 442), and 31% (n = 48 056) were Medicare Advantage insured, with a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 154 Evidence: moderate

Medicare Advantage Beneficiary Enrollment Decisions Following New Complex Conditions

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA Health Forum 2026-08-21

The analytic sample included 1 054 926 beneficiaries, including 219 942 (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.3] years; 54.6% female) who developed new complex conditions in 2019 and 834 984 (mean [SD] age, 73.8 [5.6] years; 56.7% female) who did not develop a new complex condition in 2019. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The Dementia SomaSignal Test (dSST): A plasma proteomic predictor of 20‐year dementia risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

In addition to outperforming existing plasma biomarkers, the dSST predicted mid-life dementia risk over a 20-year follow-up across two independent cohorts with different ethnic backgrounds (areas under the curve [AUCs]: dSST 0.68-0.70, dSST+age 0.75-0.81). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 11,277 Evidence: moderate

The COVID-19 pandemic forced adult day services (ADS) to close and abruptly end in-person services to clients. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 19 Evidence: high

Clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy: The movement disorder society criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Movement Disorders 2017-05-03

Here, we present new criteria aimed to optimize early, sensitive, and specific clinical diagnosis of PSP on the basis of currently available evidence. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Hypothetical Preclinical Alzheimer Disease Groups and Longitudinal Cognitive Change

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2016-06-01

These results suggest that, to optimize observing a treatment effect, clinical trials enrolling cognitively normal individuals should selectively recruit participants with abnormal levels of both amyloid and tau (ie, stage 2) because this group would be expected to show the greatest cognitive decline over time if untreated. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The CSDD, and particularly its mood subscale, appears to be more sensitive than the HDRS, it's subscales or the NPI-M, for comparing drug to placebo in treating major depression in AD patients. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Patient treatment with sertraline was not associated with significantly greater reductions in caregiver distress than placebo treatment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: high

We examined longitudinal associations between the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (ApoE4(+) status) and several cognitive outcomes and tested effect modification by sex. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate

The Self-Care Needs and Behaviors of Dementia Informal Caregivers: A Systematic Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2019-09-01

Three themes emerged from 29 included studies: self-care needs and behaviors of ICGs, barriers to performing self-care, and enablers of self-care. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The number of older adults with dementia in the US and globally is projected to increase as a result of population aging and growth. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: low

APOE ε4 carriers share immune-related proteomic changes across neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature medicine 2025-07-15

The APOE ε4 genetic variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and is increasingly being implicated in other neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Longitudinal change in cognitive performance among individuals with mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neuropsychology 2007-03-01

The authors used mixed-effects growth models to examine longitudinal change in neuropsychological performance over a 4-year period among 197 individuals who were either normal or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate

Several families with an early-onset form of familial Alzheimer's disease have been found to harbour mutations at a specific codon (717) of the gene for the beta-amyloid precursor protein (APP) on chromosome 21. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

C9ORF72 poly(GA) aggregates sequester and impair HR23 and nucleocytoplasmic transport proteins

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2016-03-21

Neuronal inclusions of poly(GA), a protein unconventionally translated from G4C2 repeat expansions in C9ORF72, are abundant in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by this mutation. 4 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 28,180 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