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 1–20 of 20 studies with an author at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 20 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 investigated the effects of renin-angiotensin system blockade on cognitive function in patients aged 55 years and older with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage in two clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 620 Evidence: high

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases dementia risk with no pharmacologic treatment available. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

GRN mutations cause progranulin haploinsufficiency, which eventually leads to frontotemporal dementia (FTD-GRN). 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: moderate

Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2007-04-18

It is associated with increases in mortality, physical morbidity, length of hospital stay, institutionalisation and costs to healthcare providers. 4 key findings →

Participants: 833 Evidence: high

In the cohort analyses, 891 incident dementia cases were identified over 166,762 person-years. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 207,981 Evidence: moderate

The MD is a scientifically supported dietary intervention with broad preventive and therapeutic benefits. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 84 Evidence: high

TDP-43 proteinopathies: a new wave of neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2020-11-11

Inclusions of pathogenic deposits containing TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) are evident in the brain and spinal cord of patients that present across a spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Defining a signature of cortical regions of interest preferentially affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology may offer improved sensitivity to early AD compared to hippocampal volume or mesial temporal lobe alone. 3 key findings →

Participants: 588 Evidence: moderate

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a powerful tool to probe in vivo brain circuits, as it allows to assess several cortical properties such asexcitability, plasticity and connectivity in humans. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The 3D-CAM-S severity scores correlated with DRS, delirium duration, and biomarkers of delirium. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 177 Evidence: moderate

Neuroinflammation in frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2019-07-19

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a group of progressive neurodegenerative disorders with different pathological signatures, genetic variability and complex disease mechanisms, for which no effective treatments exist. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Linear mixed modelling of time effects found progression of all CBI-R domains, aside from sleep, beliefs and mood domains, and all ACE-III domains. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In the last 5 years significant progress has been made in potential dementia treatments, yet many of these treatments come with significant burdens on the healthcare system that may limit access to treatment and care for patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Patients with PDD showed a more severe phenotype than those with DLB, with higher scores in motor severity, hallucinations, delusions, somnolence, and urinary dysfunction (all p≤0.01). 5 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

26% of the participants experienced delirium prior to diagnosis of DLB, with one participant experiencing multiple episodes in the 24 months before diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

MC1 detects tau pathology in chronic traumatic encephalopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology 2026-03-02

To the Editor: MC1 is a monoclonal anti-tau antibody developed by the Peter Davies laboratory in the 1990s to aid the neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD).1 Raised against Alz-50-immunopurified paired helical filaments (PHFs) from an AD brain, MC1 recognizes a conformational, discontinuous epitope involving residues 7-9 in the N-terminus and 313-322 in the third repeat domain of tau (Figure 1A). 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

Impaired cerebrovascular-cerebrospinal fluid coupling is associated with non-motor features of Lewy body disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-19

Parkinsons disease and dementia with Lewy bodies patients both demonstrated weaker global BOLD-CSF coupling compared to controls, with no detectable difference between patient groups. 4 key findings →

Participants: 39 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 27,380 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