alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 126–142 of 142 studies with an author at Hospital de Sant Pau (ES) (page 6 of 6) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 142 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 13,658 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Clinical recognition of frontotemporal dementia with right temporal predominance: a consensus statement from the International Working Group

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Communications Medicine 2025-12-12

Accurate diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with right anterior temporal lobe (RATL) predominance remains challenging due to lack of clinical characterization, and standardized terminology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

VAMP-2 Is a Surrogate Cerebrospinal Fluid Marker of Alzheimer-related Cognitive Impairment in Adults With Down Syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2021-03-23

There is an urgent need for objective markers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-related cognitive impairment in people with Down syndrome (DS) to improve diagnosis, monitor disease progression and assess response to disease-modifying therapies. 4 key findings →

Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Early Detection of White Matter Integrity Changes in Down Syndrome: The Promise of PSMD as a Sensitive Biomarker

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

In DS, PSMD changed approximately 10‐15 years before the onset of AD symptoms and linearly increased with AD clinical stages, AD pathology, and SVD metrics. 4 key findings →

Participants: 70 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Distinct Sensitivity of MRI Versus [ 18 F]FDG‐PET To Detect Cerebral Changes Across the Alzheimer's Continuum in Down Syndrome: A Multimodal Imaging Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Amyloid pathology in aDS individuals is linked to frontal‐predominant atrophy without clear hypometabolism. 5 key findings →

Participants: 29 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Appropriate use recommendations of the Spanish Society of Neurology’s Behavioural Neurology and Dementia Study Group on anti-amyloid antibodies in the treatment of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. Neurología (English Edition) 2026-05-01

The introduction of the first anti-amyloid mAb represents a paradigm shift in the management of AD, but is not free of challenges. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Diagnostic performance of plasma Aβ 1-42 , Aβ 1-40 and pTau 181 in the LUMIPULSE automated platform for the detection of Alzheimer disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2023-04-26

Recently-developed blood markers for Alzheimer’s (AD) detection have high accuracy but usually require ultra-sensitive analytic tools not commonly available in clinical laboratories. 4 key findings →

Participants: 136 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Routine implementation of α-synuclein Seed Amplification Assays reveals high diagnostic performance and the limited value of Alzheimer disease fluid biomarkers for detecting α-synuclein co-pathology

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-04-23

In neurodegenerative diseases, the diagnostic value of α-synuclein seed amplification assay (αSAA) in routine clinical practice and its relationship with cognitive performance and fluid biomarkers remains incompletely characterized. 4 key findings →

Participants: 398 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A Spanish grammaticality judgment task for neurodegenerative diseases: inflectional, transitivity, and word order comprehension in PPA and Alzheimer's Disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-28

Impairment in the comprehension of morphosyntactic and transitivity information does not feature in current diagnostic guidelines for primary progressive aphasia (PPA) or Alzheimers Diseases (AD), despite research reporting delayed sensitivity or insensitivity of these clinical populations to these linguistic domains. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of neighborhood deprivation with Alzheimer's Disease pathology, brain structure, and cognition by race and ethnicity, sex, and APOE ε4 status

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 2026-05-18

We investigated associations of neighborhood disadvantage with Alzheimer's Disease (AD)-related outcomes by biological and social factors in at-risk older adults. 1,880 U.S. POINTER participants with Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and cognition (PACC) were included. 868 had amyloid, tau PET, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), and/or gray matter volumes. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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