alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 26 studies with an author at University of Liverpool (GB) (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Risk prediction of covid-19 related death and hospital admission in adults after covid-19 vaccination: national prospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2021-09-17

Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A Systematic Review of Smartphone and Tablet Use by Older Adults With and Without Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Innovation in aging 2022-01-06

There was some evidence that the use of smartphones and tablets could aid cognitive function in older adults without cognitive impairment, particularly executive function and processing speed. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 28 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Sertraline or mirtazapine for depression in dementia (HTA-SADD): a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 2011-07-19

Decreases in depression scores at 13 weeks did not differ between 111 controls and 107 participants allocated to receive sertraline (mean difference 1·17, 95% CI -0·23 to 2·58; p=0·10) or mirtazapine (0·01, -1·37 to 1·38; p=0·99), or between participants in the mirtazapine and sertraline groups (1·16, -0·25 to 2·57; p=0·11); these findings persisted to 39 weeks. 3 key findings →

Participants: 107 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A European-Multicenter Network for the Implementation of Artificial Intelligence to Manage Complexity and Comorbidities of Atrial Fibrillation Patients: The ARISTOTELES Consortium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Thrombosis and Haemostasis 2025-01-20

In the prospective GLORIA-AF registry of AF patients, the presence of clinical complexity was associated with lower odds of being prescribed with OAC (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–0.57), higher OAC discontinuation, and with a higher risk of adverse events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.43–1.86).[ 4 ] Indeed, “high clinical complexity” patients defined using latent class analysis constituted 6.6% of AF patients, and was associated with higher hazards of experiencing the primary composite outcome of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.47, 95% 1.24–1.75).[ 5 ] Comorbidities and polypharmacy have an important influence on decision-making, by conditioning either lack of prescription of OAC in patients at risk or inappropriate dosing.[ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] Recognizing that AF management is more than simply OAC alone, and requires a holistic and integrated care approach, contemporary guidelines globally on AF management have promoted this concept, based on the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, emphasizing Anticoagulation, Better symptom management with rate or rhythm control, and Comorbidity/lifestyle management.[ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] The ABC pathway is well supported by clinical trial and real-world evidence,[ 11 ] whereby adherence to the ABC pathway is associated with a reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and bleeding.[ 12 ] [ 13 ] Despite this, adherence to ABC-based management remains low, whereby a meta-analysis of 14 studies revealed that only 21% (95% CI 13–34%) of AF patients were managed in accordance with the ABC pathway.[ 12 ] This perhaps highlights a critical gap in the implementation of comprehensive evidence-based care strategies. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Comorbidities associated with mortality in 31,461 adults with COVID-19 in the United States: A federated electronic medical record analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. PLoS medicine 2020-09-10

At the beginning of June 2020, there were nearly 7 million reported cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide and over 400,000 deaths in people with COVID-19. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Sex differences in the association between cardiovascular diseases and dementia subtypes: a prospective analysis of 464,616 UK Biobank participants

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Biology of sex differences 2022-05-07

Whether the association of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) with dementia differs by sex remains unclear, and the role of socioeconomic, lifestyle, genetic, and medical factors in their association is unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 502,649 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neocortical cholinergic neurons in elderly people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Lancet (London, England) 1977-03-01

Choline acetyltransferase activity (presynaptic cholinergic system) and high affinity binding of cholinergic antagonists (postsynaptic cholinergic system) were measured in brain tissue removed after death from both mentally normal and demented old people. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Disentangling the relationship between glucose, insulin and brain health: A UK Biobank study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 2025-12-12

In UKB, higher 2-h post-load glucose was associated with a 69% increased Alzheimer's dementia risk (odds ratio 1.69 [95% confidence interval 1.38-2.07]), though this did not replicate in an independent GWAS. 5 key findings →

Participants: 357 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

“There is always a reason why someone is doing something”: The importance of life history and personhood when supporting people with dementia to “wander” in care homes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Dementia 2025-01-27

Up to 60% of people living with dementia who reside in care homes will ‘wander’ at some point. 1 key finding →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The experience of “at‐risk” status for familial frontotemporal dementia (fFTD) and its impact on reproductive decision‐making: A qualitative study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Genetic Counseling 2025-01-12

Familial frontotemporal dementia (fFTD) is an autosomal dominant heritable form of FTD, onsetting in mid-life, characterized by behavioral and personality changes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Risk of stroke associated with risperidone in dementia with and without comorbid cardiovascular disease: population-based matched cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. The British Journal of Psychiatry 2025-10-09

In the overall cohort (28 403 risperidone users and 136 324 mtatched controls), risperidone was associated with increased risk of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.20-1.37). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Causality between Alzheimer disease and delirium: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study and gene colocalization analyses

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Medicine 2026-01-30

To evaluate the possible causality between Alzheimer disease (AD) and delirium, a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) method and gene colocalization strategy were employed. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Stalling life expectancy and increased mortality in working ages deserve urgent attention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The Lancet Public Health 2019-11-01

The effect of austerity and associated budgets are strong contenders,3Ruckert A Labonté R Health inequities in the age of austerity: the need for social protection policies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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