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 76–100 of 226 studies with an author at Brown University (US) (page 4 of 10) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 226 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.

Memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, is approved in the United States and Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer disease (AD) and has also been investigated in patients with mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. New England Journal of Medicine 2010-01-27

This review of Alzheimer's disease assembles a variety of findings relevant to the mechanism of the disease and ties them together using the current understanding of the basis of the loss of cognition: the accumulation of misfolded proteins, which cause oxidative and inflammatory damage to the brain and, ultimately, synaptic dysfunction.

In DIAD, clinical disease stage and BDNF Met66 were associated with cognitive impairment and levels of site-specific tau phosphorylation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 527 Evidence: moderate

The S@H study is the first randomized trial of a firearm safety decision aid for ADRD caregivers. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 117 Evidence: high

Donanemab: Appropriate use recommendations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2025-03-27

Donanemab (Kisunla®), an IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting N-terminal pyroglutamate-modified forms of amyloid-β, is approved in the United States for treatment of early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This was a retrospective cohort study to examine differences in health service utilization and outcomes between FFS and MA patients in SNFs following hip fracture hospitalization during the period January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015, and followed up until December 31, 2015. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are frequently seen on brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of older people. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The extent to which the pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease corresponds to the pathophysiology of 'sporadic' late onset Alzheimer's disease is unknown, thus limiting the extrapolation of study findings and clinical trial results in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease to late onset Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 559 Evidence: low

Study findings will reveal the feasibility of delivering an 8-week multidomain health education intervention for primary prevention of dementia in midlife and will provide preliminary evidence of mechanisms of change. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) constitutes a devastating disease spectrum characterized by 43-kDa TAR DNA-binding protein (TDP-43) pathology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The sample included 2 619 464 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 61% women; 87% were White; 8% were Black; 22% with ADRD). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 464 Evidence: low

Infant ε4 carriers had lower MWF and GMV measurements than noncarriers in precuneus, posterior/middle cingulate, lateral temporal, and medial occipitotemporal regions, areas preferentially affected by AD, and greater MWF and GMV measurements in extensive frontal regions and measurements were also significant in the subset of 2- to 6-month-old infants (MWF differences, P Conclusions and relevance While our findings should be considered preliminary, this study demonstrates some of the earliest brain changes associated with the genetic predisposition to AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Additional study of mechanisms of action and methods for titrating stimulation parameters will be needed to determine if DBS has potential as an AD treatment. 2 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 42 Evidence: high

↑ 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