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 51–75 of 135 studies with an author at Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES) (page 3 of 6) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 135 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 conducted a randomized, cross-over trial to investigate the feasibility, safety, and motor effects of brain stimulation with radio electric asymmetric conveyer (REAC) technique in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 60 Evidence: high

People with severe mental illnesses (SMIs), including schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and bipolar disorder (BD), experience elevated rates of physical comorbidity and premature mortality. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 694,086 Evidence: moderate

Moreover, physical activity in the elderly is associated with a decreased risk of mortality, of common chronic illnesses (i.e. cardiovascular disease or osteoarthritis) and of institutionalization as well as with a delay in functional decline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 240 Evidence: high

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are common in dementia and in predementia syndromes such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's Disease is a complex, multifactorial, and comorbid condition. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

SB-C significantly differentiated cognitively unimpaired and impaired groups (P < 0.001), correlated with standard cognitive measures, and showed moderate-to-high area under the curve (0.56-0.82) for classifying biomarker positivity, with strongest results in BioFINDER-Primary Care. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate

Low baseline Aβ42/Aβ40 was significantly associated with increased amyloid accumulation (β = 0.257, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.177-0.336, P < 0.001), and with higher risk of conversion to Aβ-PET positivity (Hazard ratio (HR) = 2.84, 95% CI 1.14-7.04, P = 0.025) and to MCI due to AD (HR = 3.25, 95% CI 1.17-9.01, P = 0.024). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate

These findings highlight LBP prevalence in DSAD but suggest current SAA may fail to detect limited αSyn deposition. 4 key findings →

Participants: 270 Evidence: moderate

The study cohort comprised a total of 6108 individuals diagnosed with AD dementia during the study period (28.4% males and 71.6% females). 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,108 Evidence: moderate

Higher grey matter volumes/cortical thickness and fluorodeoxyglucose uptake have been consistently found in cognitively unimpaired individuals with abnormal Alzheimer's disease biomarkers compared with those with normal biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Participants: 319 Evidence: moderate

Both the Keto and ADF groups demonstrated significant weight loss, but cognitive performance improved most notably in the ADF group, in association with reduced inflammation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 96 Evidence: high

Increasing oily fish intake has been proposed as a strategy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, but evidence for long-term benefit remains limited. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 2,012 Evidence: null result

Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), and amyloid beta ratio (Aβ42/40) may have diagnostic and prognostic value in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,298 Evidence: moderate

We investigated whether specific SLEs are associated with AD pathology and neurodegeneration and how these associations differ by gender and education. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Early identification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is essential for timely intervention, particularly in primary care. 4 key findings →

Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate

BackgroundIndividuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of developing both vascular and Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 128 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a leading cause of stroke and dementia with no specific treatment, of which molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →

Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low

Our findings suggest that microglial and astrocyte reactivity, measured through fluid biomarkers, occur early and impact the amyloid cascade on the preclinical Alzheimer´s continuum. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

The use of new technologies (i.e., mobile ecological momentary assessments [EMAs], activity tracker) in the PENSA study allows the collection of continuous data on lifestyle behaviors (diet and physical activity) and mood, enabling a personalized design as well as an intensive follow-up of participants. 2 key findings →

Participants: 200 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