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 26–47 of 47 studies with an author at University of Groningen (NL) (page 2 of 2) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 47 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.

Divergent patterns of TDP-43 and tau pathologies in primary progressive aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2019-03-28

Postmortem cortical pathology was left-lateralized in both FTLD-TDP (beta = -0.15, standard error [SE] = 0.05, p = 0.007) and FTLD-Tau (beta = -0.09, SE = 0.04, p = 0.015), but the degree of lateralization decreased with greater overall dementia severity before death (beta = -8.18, SE = 3.22, p = 0.015). 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Despite a growing interest in auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) in different clinical and nonclinical groups, the phenomenological characteristics of such experiences have not yet been reviewed and contrasted, limiting our understanding of these phenomena on multiple empirical, theoretical, and clinical levels. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This work was supported by a Crossover grant (Maintaining Optimal Cognitive Functioning In Aging [MOCIA] 17611) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO), granted in December 2019. 5 key findings →

Participants: 102 Evidence: high

Though cerebral white matter injury is a frequently described phenomenon in aging and dementia, the cause of white matter lesions has not been conclusively determined. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

On achieving conformance, sites can justify a claim that brain amyloid burden reflected by the SUVR is measurable to a within-subject coefficient of variation of no more than 1.94% when the same radiopharmaceutical, scanner, acquisition, and analysis protocols are used. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

During a 7-year median follow-up, type 2 diabetes was associated with the highest risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.31), followed by hypertension and hyperlipidemia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Globally, 9.84 million cases of ADOD occurred in 2021, with 1.95 million ADOD-related deaths, causing 36.33 million DALYs. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

IRMA can be used to learn and disregard center-specific information in features extracted from brain $$^{18}$$ 18 F-FDG PET scans, while retaining disease-specific information. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

< .01). All patient groups were also impaired on AVLT encoding, TMT-B and TMT B/A. Social and non-social neurocognitive functions differed between groups, with specific impairments in processing speed in VaD, emotion recognition in bv-FTD and memory retrieval in AD, and memory encoding and cognitive control impaired in all three groups. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the last decade, a number of important research advances in different fields have allowed Down syndrome (DS) research to flourish, creating a time of both unparalleled opportunity and considerable challenge. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

At Home versus in a Nursing Home: Long-term Care Settings and Marginal Utility

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Not indexed 2023

Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

For these neurodegenerative dementias, we observed that the chronological age did not align with their biological age, which was determined based on hippocampal transcript levels (i.e., transcriptional age). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Fine-mapping reveals four TMEM106B haplotypes associated with neurodegenerative risk and preserved cognition at extreme age

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-17

Genetic variation at the TMEM106B locus has been associated with Alzheimers disease (AD) and related neurodegenerative phenotypes, yet its haplotypic architecture remains incompletely resolved. 2 key findings →

Participants: 493 Evidence: low

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II variation is implicated in Alzheimers disease (AD) and longevity, but its mechanisms within the major histocompatibility complex remain unclear. 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,053 Evidence: moderate

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for qualitative analysis, but strong language performance does not guarantee strong interpretation when meaning depends on method and context. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These findings show that model-based, adaptive assessments can support high-frequency, remote detection and scalable longitudinal monitoring of early memory decline, providing a new way to assess memory decline trajectories in healthy aging and dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 24 Evidence: moderate

At Home Versus in a Nursing Home: Long-Term Care Settings and Marginal Utility

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Not indexed 2023

Marginal utility of financial resources when needing long-term care, and the related incentives for precautionary savings and insurance, may vary significantly by whether one receives care at home or in a nursing home. 5 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