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 94 studies with an author at Johns Hopkins University (US) published 2025 (page 1 of 4) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Rates of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease (AD) are extremely heterogeneous. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 3,397 Evidence: moderate

Using cross-population GWAS meta-analyses, we identify novel LOAD susceptibility loci in/near LRRC4C and LHX5-AS1, both with known roles in neuronal development, as well as several novel population-unique loci. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 409,589 Evidence: high

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration with neuronal inclusions of the TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (FTLD-TDP) is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder with only a limited number of risk loci identified. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 985 Evidence: high

Escitalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's dementia: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Nature Medicine 2025-03-25

Citalopram is effective in treating agitation in Alzheimer's dementia (AD), but it is associated with cognitive and cardiac risks, likely due to its R-enantiomer. 5 key findings →

Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 173 Evidence: null result

White Matter Abnormalities and Cognition in Aging and Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-06-09

Of 4467 participants who underwent 9208 longitudinal cognitive sessions, 2698 (60.4%) were female, and the mean age (SD) was 74.3 (9.2) years; 3213 were cognitively unimpaired, 972 had mild cognitive impairment, and 282 had AD dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,467 Evidence: moderate

The primary outcome was difference in the change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy scores for oxytocin versus placebo periods in the per-protocol population after 6 weeks of treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 94 Evidence: early

Contribution of Modifiable Midlife and Late-Life Vascular Risk Factors to Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-07-01

A total of 7731 participants were included in analysis of risk factors measured at age 45 to 54 years (4494 female [58%]; 2207 Black [29%]; 5524 White [71%]), 12 274 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 55 to 64 years (6698 female [55%]; 2886 Black [24%]; 9388 White [76%]), and 6787 contributed to analysis of risk factors measured at age 65 to 74 years (3764 female [56%], 1375 Black [20%]; 5412 White [80%]). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 12,274 Evidence: moderate

Midlife Vascular Risk Factors, Parkinson Disease, and Parkinson Disease-Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2025-09-04

Among 13,875 individuals with nonmissing VRF and outcome data with up to 30 years of follow-up (25% Black, 54% female), 179 developed PD at a mean age of 73.4 years, 94 developed PDD at a mean age of 79.2 years, and 1,791 developed dementia without PD at a mean age of 79.7 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 13,875 Evidence: moderate

From October 2018 to March 2020, 58 participants were recruited (29 per group, 95% [86%-99%]). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 58 Evidence: high

Risk Factors Associated With Late-Onset Epilepsy in Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-04-14

Of the 14 685 participants (7355 female [50%] and 7330 male [50%]; mean [SD] age, 73.8 [8.5] years) who met the inclusion criteria, 221 participants (1.5%) developed LOE during follow-up. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 713 Evidence: moderate

= 0.009). Significant differences in annualized changes in these FA and MD values were found depending on the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes and smoking. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,471 Evidence: moderate

An AI-Powered Lifestyle Intervention vs Human Coaching in the Diabetes Prevention Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA 2025-10-27

A total of 368 participants were included (median [IQR] age, 58 [50-65] years; 71% were female, 27% were Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 61% were White; median [IQR] BMI, 32.3 [28.5-37.1]). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 368 Evidence: high

MarkVCID2 enrolled 1883 individuals age 73.4 ± 7.5 years, 65.0% female, 24.2% Hispanic, and 27.1% non-Hispanic Black. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,883 Evidence: moderate

Among 2946 participants (mean [SD] age, 74.9 [4.6] years; 1751 [59.4] female; 637 Black [21.6%] and 2309 White [78.4%] individuals), 1947 participants (66.1%) had audiometric hearing loss, and 1097 (37.2%) had self-reported hearing loss. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,946 Evidence: moderate

A total of 3828 titles and abstracts and 434 full-text articles were reviewed, yielding 12 articles meeting eligibility criteria. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 694 Evidence: high

Comorbid cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors (CVM) differentially impact brain structure and increase dementia risk, but their specific magnetic resonance imaging signatures (MRI) remain poorly characterized. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 37,096 Evidence: moderate

Sex differences in the clinical manifestation of autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

While sex differences were not apparent at asymptomatic stages, females showed more rapid declines across all outcomes in symptomatic stages compared to males. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 337 Evidence: moderate

The majority of participants were female and were taking concomitant psychotropic medications (antidepressants and antipsychotics) at baseline. 3 key findings →

Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 75 Evidence: early

Our findings suggest that poor olfaction is associated with multiple AD-related and other neurodegenerative processes. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,545 Evidence: moderate

Among 4712 participants (59% female; mean age, 74 years), 193 ischemic strokes and 769 dementia cases were ascertained over a median follow-up of 8.3 years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,712 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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