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 1–17 of 17 studies with an author at University of Colorado Boulder (US) · 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.

Systematic meta-analyses of Alzheimer disease genetic association studies: the AlzGene database

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Nature genetics 2007-01-01

The past decade has witnessed hundreds of reports declaring or refuting genetic association with putative Alzheimer disease susceptibility genes. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

C9ORF72 poly(GA) aggregates sequester and impair HR23 and nucleocytoplasmic transport proteins

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2016-03-21

Neuronal inclusions of poly(GA), a protein unconventionally translated from G4C2 repeat expansions in C9ORF72, are abundant in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) caused by this mutation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Aberrant cleavage of TDP-43 enhances aggregation and cellular toxicity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2009-04-21

Inclusions of TAR DNA-binding protein-43 (TDP-43), a nuclear protein that regulates transcription and RNA splicing, are the defining histopathological feature of frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-Us) and sporadic and familial forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging Bench-to-Bedside Conference: Sensory Impairment and Cognitive Decline in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2018-09-24

This article summarizes the presentations and recommendations of the tenth annual American Geriatrics Society and National Institute on Aging Bench-to-Bedside research conference, "Sensory Impairment and Cognitive Decline," on October 2-3, 2017, in Bethesda, Maryland. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Eukaryotic stress granules are cleared by autophagy and Cdc48/VCP function

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Cell 2013-06-01

Stress granules and P bodies are conserved cytoplasmic aggregates of nontranslating messenger ribonucleoprotein complexes (mRNPs) implicated in the regulation of mRNA translation and decay and are related to RNP granules in embryos, neurons, and pathological inclusions in some degenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Depression and dementia: interrogating the causality of the relationship

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 2025-01-11

Depression was a strong risk factor for incident dementia with an OR of 1.76 (95% CI 1.63 to 1.90), a relationship which was found to be specific to depression rather than commonly proposed confounders. 5 key findings →

Participants: 557 Evidence: low

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

How to do things with (thousands of) words: Computational approaches to discourse analysis in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior 2020-05-19

Natural Language Processing (NLP) is an ever-growing field of computational science that aims to model natural human language. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

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

Young adult urbanicity, late midlife neighborhood disadvantage, and cognitive functioning in community-dwelling older men

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. The Journals of Gerontology Series B 2026-05-20

Compared to those in rural areas, participants who resided in urban areas during young adulthood had lower late midlife ADI (β = -0.85, p < .05), and better executive function (β = 0.19), processing speed (β = 0.24), and verbal fluency (β = 0.30) (ps < .05) in older adulthood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Associations between U.S. county‐level social infrastructure and dementia among Medicare beneficiaries, 2020

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Behavior & Socioeconomics of Aging 2025-07-07

Higher densities of civic organizations were associated with lower county dementia incidence, while museums and recreational facilities were associated with lower prevalence and incidence. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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 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