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 1–21 of 21 studies with an author at Inha University (KR) · 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.

South Korean study to prevent cognitive impairment and protect brain health through multidomain interventions via face‐to‐face and video communication platforms in mild cognitive impairment (SUPERBRAIN‐MEET): A randomized controlled trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-01-22

The overall adherence rate to MI was 84.7%. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Evaluation of ATNPD Framework and Biofluid Markers to Predict Cognitive Decline in Early Parkinson Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2024-02-02

In patients with early PD, CSF p-tau 181 and t-tau were low compared with those in controls and did not increase over 5 years of follow-up. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

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

Anatomical heterogeneity of Alzheimer disease: based on cortical thickness on MRIs

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2014-10-24

This cluster analysis of cortical thickness of the entire brain showed that AD dementia in the earlier stages can be categorized into various anatomical subtypes, with distinct clinical features. 5 key findings →

Participants: 52 Evidence: low

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

Practical Guide of the Korean Association for Geriatric Psychiatry to Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease: Focused on Lecanemab

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Journal of Korean medical science 2025-07-23

The advent of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), from symptomatic relief to disease modification. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

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

Synergistic effects of ischemia and β-amyloid burden on cognitive decline in patients with subcortical vascular mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA psychiatry 2014-04-01

Most patients with svMCI do not exhibit substantial amyloid burden, and CVD does not increase β-amyloid burden as measured by amyloid imaging. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 95 Evidence: low

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

A nationwide survey on the prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in South Korea

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2011-01-01

We investigated the prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and the factors associate with risk of dementia from a representative nationwide sample of Korean elders. 8,199 randomly-sampled Koreans aged 65 years or older were invited to participate in the Phase I screening assessment using Mini-Mental State Examination by door-to-door home visit, and 6,141 subjects (response rate = 74.9%) responded. 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,141 Evidence: low

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

Prediction of cognitive impairment via deep learning trained with multi-center neuropsychological test data

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2019-11-21

The machine learning algorithm for NPTs has suggested potential use as a reference in differentiating cognitive impairment in the clinical setting. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Comparative Prognostic Performance of Hippocampal Volume and Plasma Biomarkers in Amyloid-Negative Subjective Cognitive Decline: A Four-Year Follow-up

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of Clinical Neurology 2026-01-01

Fourteen participants (21.5%) converted to MCI, and 24 (36.9%) were classified as Prog-1.Plasma biomarkers did not show consistent predictive performance across predefined endpoints (all p>0.05), although NfL demonstrated modest discrimination for MCI conversion (area under the curve [AUC] 0.686, p=0.008).Hippocampal volume demonstrated significant discriminative performance for MCI conversion (AUC 0.765, p=0.016) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.933, p<0.001).For Prog-2, hippocampal volume showed high discrimination (AUC 0.952, p<0.001).WMH grade also demonstrated significant discrimination for MCI conversion (AUC 0.835, p<0.001) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.857, p<0.001).Bootstrap analyses (1,000 iterations) tended to show higher AUC estimates for imaging markers compared with plasma biomarkers. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

The patient pathway for mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease in Asia: Current practices, barriers, and expert recommendations for optimization

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-06-06

Forty-four physicians, primarily neurologists (n = 31; 70.5 %), were interviewed. 5 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

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

Detection of Alzheimer Disease Pathology in Patients Using Biochemical Biomarkers: Prospects and Challenges for Use in Clinical Practice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The journal of applied laboratory medicine 2020-01-01

Thirty-four years ago, amyloid-β 1-42 peptide was identified in amyloid plaques from brain tissue obtained from patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and Down syndrome. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Demands for Development of Taurine-Containing Home Meal Replacement for Prevention of Dementia According to Age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Advances in experimental medicine and biology 2019-08-31

It has been reported that taurine intake in the past may have a positive effect on present cognitive function in the elderly. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 481 Evidence: low

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

↑ 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