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 1–23 of 23 studies with an author at University of Luxembourg (LU) · 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.

Frontotemporal dementia and its subtypes: a genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2014-07-01

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high

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

Alzheimer Disease Blood Biomarkers in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2023-04-01

In this case-control study, blood biomarkers indicative of AD pathology demonstrated different dynamics of change after cardiac arrest. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 80 Evidence: high

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

Prevalence of dementia in Latin America and Caribbean countries: Systematic review and meta-analyses exploring age, sex, rurality, and education as possible determinants

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Ageing research reviews 2022-08-03

Our findings suggest a high global dementia prevalence in LAC countries and an unequal burden of dementia for women, lower-educated, and rural residents. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Data-driven clinical decision support tool for diagnosing mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. npj Parkinson s Disease 2026-01-12

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative condition that may affect both motor and cognitive function. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

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

Examining multimorbidity contributors to dementia over time

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-02-01

Hypertension, acute myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and arthritis additively accounted for 71.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62.9%-79.1%) of ADRD incident cases based on LE-AAF. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

APOE-stratified genome-wide association analyses provide insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimers's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Nature genetics 2026-09-14

Among the more than 90 identified genetic risk loci for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias, the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene ɛ2/ɛ3/ɛ4 polymorphisms remain the longstanding benchmark for genetic disease risk with a consistently large effect across studies 1-10 . 5 key findings →

Design: case-control Evidence: high

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

A simulation study comparing anticholinergic drug use with polypharmacy for risk of death, dementia, and delirium in UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series A 2025-10-17

Odds ratios for death, dementia, and delirium using anticholinergic-polypharmacy pseudoscales (median = 1.09-1.10) were greater than those of general-polypharmacy pseudoscales (1.05-1.06). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Dementia prevention through the eyes of individuals at risk: insights from a satisfaction survey within the programme for dementia prevention in Luxembourg

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Frontiers in Aging 2026-01-16

Our study shows that the pdp is well received by its participants, underlined by a high level of satisfaction and positive responses to what pdp offers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 575 Evidence: low

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

Predicting dementia in people with Parkinson’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. npj Parkinson s Disease 2025-05-13

Parkinson's disease (PD) exhibits a variety of symptoms, with approximately 25% of patients experiencing mild cognitive impairment and 45% developing dementia within ten years of diagnosis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

Temporal transcriptomic changes in the THY-Tau22 mouse model of tauopathy display cell type- and sex-specific differences

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Acta Neuropathologica Communications 2025-05-07

We identified several significant sex-specific and sex-dimorphic differentially expressed genes in neurons, microglia, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, including both cross-sectional changes and alterations from 7 months to 17 months of age. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

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

GCH1 genetic variation as a prognostic factor in Parkinsons disease across populations

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

BackgroundPathogenic variants in GCH1 have been associated with Parkinsons disease (PD), but the clinical phenotype and longitudinal disease course of GCH1-associated PD remain incompletely characterized. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22,825 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source

↑ 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