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

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 726–750 of 777 studies with an author at University of California, San Francisco (US) (page 30 of 32) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

Subjects

Authors

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

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 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.

Clinical recognition of frontotemporal dementia with right temporal predominance: a consensus statement from the International Working Group

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Communications Medicine 2025-12-12

Accurate diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with right anterior temporal lobe (RATL) predominance remains challenging due to lack of clinical characterization, and standardized terminology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Patterns of cerebral atrophy in primary progressive aphasia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 2002-01-01

The authors illustrate the spectrum of clinical and imaging patterns in primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a syndrome of slowly progressive speech and language impairment occurring with neurodegenerative disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The Memory Alteration Test Is Correlated with Clinical, Cerebrospinal Fluid, and Brain Imaging Markers of Alzheimer Disease in Lima, Peru

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2023-10-12

As disease-modifying therapies become available for Alzheimer's disease (AD), detection of AD in early stages of illness (mild cognitive impairment [MCI], early dementia) becomes increasingly important. 4 key findings →

Participants: 185 Evidence: moderate

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

Asian Americans & Racism: Individual and Structural Experiences (ARISE) Pilot Study: Cultural and Linguistic Considerations in Studying Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean American Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Recruitment strategies are tailored in collaboration with community organizations to align with each language group's preferences, including adjusting the blood draw and interview sequence and hosting group blood draws where participants completed the procedure together, fostering a sense of community and reducing anxiety. 5 key findings →

Participants: 252 Evidence: low

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

Association of residential neighborhood disadvantage with amyloid PET positivity among cognitively impaired individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Behavior & Socioeconomics of Aging 2026-01-29

Residence in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods may be associated with lower amyloid pathology in cognitively impaired individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

AI-driven magnetoencephalography biomarkers in dementia risk prediction: current evidence, challenges and future perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Frontiers in Dementia 2026-04-07

Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria, covering populations from healthy controls to individuals with subjective cognitive decline, MCI, AD, and other dementias. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Measurement of GFAP in hepatic encephalopathy by ELISA and transblots

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology 1985-09-01

Basal ganglia, cerebral cortex and subcortical white matter were studied for glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in four cases of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) with Alzheimer II gliosis and five age-matched controls. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Mouse model of neurodegeneration: atrophy of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons in trisomy 16 transplants

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1992-02-01

Vulnerability of specific brain regions and neuronal populations is a characteristic feature of Alzheimer disease and Down syndrome. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Social determinants of pharmacological dementia management: results from IDEAS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We used multilevel logistic regression with a random site intercept to test whether the probability of change in management associated with social determinants, race/ADI interactions with amyloid‐positivity, comorbidities, and clinical setting, adjusting for demographics. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The potential impact of optimal blood pressure treatment intensity to reduce disparities in dementia between Black and White individuals

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-01-01

average annual dementia incidence in White, but not Black, adults (1% versus 0%), due to hypertensive individuals' greater survival, and reduce annual ASCVD events more in Black than White adults (13% versus 5%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Directionality bias underpins divergent spatiotemporal progression of Alzheimer‐related tauopathy in mouse models

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-05-01

Retrograde bias better predicted tau progression than anterograde bias, but our best-fitting biophysical models incorporate the mixed effects of both retrograde- and anterograde-directed spread, with notable tau-strain-specific differences. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Associations of social determinants of health (SDOH) with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the HABS‐HD Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

All the five dimensional SDOH disadvantages were significantly associated with higher odds of both dementia and MCI in the overall sample (p <0.05) (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,229 Evidence: low

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

Multimorbidity, Cognition, and Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers: A Pathway Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, APOE ε4, and physical activity, a greater multimorbidity burden (per 3 additional conditions) was associated with worse overall cognition (standardized β = -0.074, 95%CI -0.104 to -0.043) and biomarkers indicative of greater AD pathology, neurodegeneration, and SVD (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

AT(N) Biomarkers Across Modalities in the Pathways Between Multimorbidity and Cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, APOE ε4, and physical activity, a greater multimorbidity burden (per 3 additional conditions) was associated with worse overall cognition (standardized β =-0.074, 95%CI -0.104 to -0.043) and biomarkers indicative of greater AD pathology, neurodegeneration, and SVD (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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 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