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 26–44 of 44 studies with an author at Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES) (page 2 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 44 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.

• Longitudinal imaging-genetics study of hippocampal atrophy trajectories over 5 years in ADNI. • APOE -ε4 carriership and ApoE CSF proteomic quantitative trait loci are key genetic drivers of accelerated hippocampal atrophy in amyloid-positive MCI. • Genetic effects are stage-specific, with strongest associations during the prodromal phase of AD. • Sex differences in atrophy rates are observed, but do not significantly alter genetic influences. • Findings support the utility of APOE and functional genetic markers as stratification tools for early neurodegeneration in AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,051 Evidence: moderate

We investigated whether β-amyloid, cortical thickness in medial temporal lobe structures, neuroinflammation, and sociodemographic factors were associated with greater anxious-depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 confinement. 5 key findings →

Participants: 921 Evidence: moderate

This manuscript is the second part of a two-part description of the current status of understanding of the network function of the brain in health and disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

They are often found in middle-aged individuals and are associated with a greater risk of stroke and vascular dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,072 Evidence: low

There is little direct evidence that underground railway particulate matter exposure is more harmful than ambient particulate matter exposure. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Participants' age ranged from 45 to 87, 53% were women, and 26% were diagnosed with dementia (39% AD, 18% Lewy Body and 17% Frontotemporal Dementia; Table 1). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate

We found a positive main effect of CSF Aβ42/40 (p = 0.011) and p-tau181 (p = 0.012) on BC of the Dorsal Attention Network (DAN) (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This observational study included 290 cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants with a family history (FH) of clinically diagnosed sporadic AD (age 49-73 years) from the Alzheimer's and Families (ALFA) study. [ 18 F]flutemetamol-PET standardized uptake value ratios, CSF β-amyloid 42/40 ratio, and phosphorylated tau were used as AD biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Participants: 290 Evidence: low

Attention deficit is one of the core symptoms of the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We have successfully generated specific high affinity monoclonal antibodies against p -Tau217, p -Tau205, and N-terminus GFAP and have confirmed that these antibodies have the necessary specificity and sensitivity for the Simoa platform. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Down syndrome (DS) is an aneuploidy syndrome that is caused by trisomy for human chromosome 21 resulting in a characteristic cognitive and behavioral phenotype, which includes executive functioning and adaptive behavior difficulties possibly due to prefrontal cortex (PFC) deficits. 1 key finding →

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

A head-to-head comparison of plasma biomarkers to detect biologically defined Alzheimer in a memory clinic

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2024-10-27

Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been widely studied, but direct comparisons of several biomarkers in clinical settings remain limited. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate

We investigated associations of neighborhood disadvantage with Alzheimer's Disease (AD)-related outcomes by biological and social factors in at-risk older adults. 1,880 U.S. POINTER participants with Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and cognition (PACC) were included. 868 had amyloid, tau PET, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), and/or gray matter volumes. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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