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 226–250 of 371 studies with an author at University of Cambridge (GB) (page 10 of 15) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 371 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.

An update on blood-based biomarkers for non-Alzheimer neurodegenerative disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2020-04-22

Cerebrospinal fluid analyses and neuroimaging can identify the underlying pathophysiology at the earliest stage of some neurodegenerative disorders, but do not have the scalability needed for population screening. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04821960; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04821960. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Differentiating frontal and temporal variant frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2000-06-01

The double dissociation in performance on semantic memory and attention/executive function clearly separated the temporal and frontal variants of FTD and aids the early differentiation of FTD from AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Change in eating behaviour was significantly more common in both of the frontotemporal dementia groups than in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

FDG-PET was performed on a cohort of 79 patients with newly diagnosed PD (mean disease duration 8 months) and 20 unrelated controls. 4 key findings →

Participants: 79 Evidence: moderate

Mr M, a patient with semantic dementia--a neurodegenerative disease that is characterized by the gradual deterioration of semantic memory--was being driven through the countryside to visit a friend and was able to remind his wife where to turn along the not-recently-travelled route. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In the whole population (N = 1,214,286) and the subpopulation (N = 88,565), 5 % had no risk factors, 12 % had only one, and 82 % had multiple. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,214,286 Evidence: moderate

Sex differences in clinical phenotypes of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

Females with sporadic bvFTD showed worse compulsive behavior (p = 0.026) and language impairments (p = 0.024) compared to females with genetic bvFTD (n = 152). 5 key findings →

Participants: 152 Evidence: low

Out of 462,327 eligible participants, those with constipation were associated with higher incidence of three outcome diseases (1415/20,263 [7.0%]) than those without (18,848/442,064 [4.3%]), with adjusted hazard ratio (HR) being 1.35 [1.27-1.42]. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Rare variants should only be investigated in users with a family history of early-onset dementia in a first degree relative. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Disturbed sleep cycles are the principal cause of institutionalization in dementia, and therefore represent a major clinical problem. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

TREM2 is a pattern recognition receptor, expressed on microglia and myeloid cells, detecting lipids and Aβ and inducing an innate immune response. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP-43, also known as TARDBP) is the major pathological protein in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The success rate of the pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) for dementia drugs has been abysmally low, in the last two decades. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Considerable data support the presence of both systemic and CNS inflammation in SVD and VCID. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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