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 301–325 of 371 studies with an author at University of Cambridge (GB) (page 13 of 15) · 27,780 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.

We have characterized a cluster of single immunoglobulin variable (IgV) domain receptors centromeric of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) on human chromosome 6. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Functional and cognitive impairments were markedly higher for those who died aged 90 and older- predominantly women-than for those who died aged 85 to 89. 5 key findings →

Participants: 321 Evidence: moderate

Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure whole brain functional connectivity within specific networks hypothesised to be more affected in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) (a disease characterised by prominent attentional deficits, spontaneous motor features of parkinsonism and depression) than in Alzheimer׳s disease (AD) and controls. 4 key findings →

Participants: 68 Evidence: low

Progressive and non-progressive patients are difficult to differentiate on the basis of current clinical diagnostic criteria for FTD but a combination of general cognitive, executive dysfunction and impaired ADL measures appear to be the most promising discriminators. 2 key findings →

Participants: 71 Evidence: low

Genetic variation in the APOE gene and variation in chromosome 21 genotypes, including the APP locus, may influence age-associated cognitive decline in adults with Down syndrome. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The findings from this study add to the anatomical knowledge of hippocampal subregions in PD, allowing us to understand the unique functional contribution of each subfield. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The risk of delirium admissions was elevated for the first 1-30 days of prescriptions [IRR 1.54 (95% CI 1.30-1.82) for men, 1.44 (1.22-1.70) for women] and whilst reducing over time for women [1.10 (0.94-1.29) for 91-365 days of prescriptions], it remained elevated for men [1.38 (1.17-1.64)]. 5 key findings →

Participants: 293 Evidence: low

In a population-based sample, increasing gliosis precedes development of Alzheimer lesions. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular risk factors and lifestyle factors are associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia in observational studies, and have been targeted by multidomain interventions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 4,162 Evidence: low

Artificial intelligence in drug development for delirium and Alzheimer’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 2025-04-28

Delirium is a common cause and complication of hospitalization in the elderly and is associated with higher risk of future dementia and progression of existing dementia, of which 70% is Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Early isolated functional disruptions in salience/visual networks were present in asymptomatic carriers, along with anterior cingulate gray matter reductions. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Within one week after dcLVA, 64.3% of patients demonstrated MMSE improvement, with further functional gains observed in continence, emotional regulation, motor coordination, and feeding independence. 5 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Unmet PC needs were highly prevalent (78.2%). 4 key findings →

Participants: 359 Evidence: low

Participants with Lewy body dementia described losses associated with communication, continence, and energy leading to a progressive loss of independence. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

It has been claimed that semantic dementia (SD), the temporal variant of fronto-temporal dementia, is characterized by an across-the-board deficit affecting all types of conceptual knowledge. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

This method differentiated eight tauopathies, including Alzheimer's disease, Pick disease, progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal degeneration (CBD), argyrophilic grain disease (AGD), frontotemporal dementia with parkinsonism associated with chromosome 17 with N279K mutation (FTDP-17 N279K), and globular glial tauopathies types II and III. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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