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 176–200 of 315 studies with an author at University of California, Los Angeles (US) (page 8 of 13) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 315 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.

The hemizygous R47H variant of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 ( TREM2 ), a microglia-specific gene in the brain, increases risk for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This prospective, observational study enrolled patients with early AD undergoing Alzheimer's biomarker analysis and matched controls. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate

Penny-wise but Pound-foolish: The Hidden Costs of Step Therapy for Overactive Bladder

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. The Journal of Urology 2023-03-23

Lenore Ackerman *Correspondence: David Geffen School of Medicine, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Box 951738, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1738 telephone: 310-794-0206; E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-7649 Department of Urology and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003430AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Overactive bladder, including symptoms of increased urinary frequency, urgency, and incontinence, is more prevalent than diabetes, affecting 1 in 6 adults in the United States.1,2 Occurring more commonly among women and older adults, untreated overactive bladder is associated with reduced quality of life, increased incidence of depression and anxiety, increased risk of experiencing falls/fractures, and increased institutionalization. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Effect of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Control on Markers of Cerebral Small Vessel Disease by Age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Hypertension 2025-10-29

In SPRINT, the overall interaction between age and SBP on WMHv change was not statistically significant ( P =0.18). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 172 Evidence: moderate

There is considerable variation in the phenotypic appearance of individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD), which may translate into differences in disease progression in addition to underlying disease etiology. 5 key findings →

Participants: 162 Evidence: low

Here, we review progress by the Penn Biomarker Core in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) toward developing a pathological cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarker signature for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as a biomarker profile that predicts conversion of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or normal control subjects to AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The purpose of this study was to assess the cross-sectional prevalence and characteristics of anxiety among patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), as compared with patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), patients with vascular dementia (VaD), and normal control subjects. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 115 Evidence: low

At year 1, persons with ADRD improved on all scales, except MMSE and functional status measures; caregivers improved on all scales. 5 key findings →

Participants: 554 Evidence: low

Lifespan exposures to rural–urban conditions and later‐life cognitive function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-06-01

Linear and logistic regression showed that childhood rural residence was associated with lower memory (standardized beta (β) = -1.68, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-2.39, -0.97]), executive function (β = -1.20, 95% CI [-1.84, -0.55]), and language fluency (β = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.64, -0.08]). 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,073 Evidence: low

Molecular features of human pathological tau distinguish tauopathy-associated dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Cell 2026-01-29

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), pathological tau protein shows a progressive accumulation of post-translational modifications (PTMs), reflecting disease severity, progression, and prion-like activity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Sex differences in clinical phenotypes of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

Females with sporadic bvFTD showed worse compulsive behavior (p = 0.026) and language impairments (p = 0.024) compared to females with genetic bvFTD (n = 152). 5 key findings →

Participants: 152 Evidence: low

These findings suggest that neuropsychiatric symptoms in MCI are a predictor of progression to AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

Characterizing Alzheimer's disease using a hypometabolic convergence index

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. NeuroImage 2011-01-27

This article introduces a hypometabolic convergence index (HCI) for the assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD); compares it to other biological, cognitive and clinical measures; and demonstrates its promise to predict clinical decline in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients using data from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is hallmarked by amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and widespread cortical neuronal loss (Selkoe, 2001). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) is widely used in AD, but may be less responsive to change when used in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 811 Evidence: low

End-of-Life Care for Older Adults With Dementia by Race and Ethnicity and Physicians’ Role

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Health Forum 2025-11-14

Among 259 945 decedents with dementia (mean [SD] age, 85.8 [8.0] years; 60.4% female), 8.3% were non-Hispanic Black, 4.4% were Hispanic, and 87.3% were non-Hispanic White. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study 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 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