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 26–50 of 86 studies with an author at Karolinska Institutet (SE) published 2025 (page 2 of 4) · 32,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 86 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.

Diet can impact cognitive aging, but comprehensive data from human studies is lacking and the underlying biological mechanisms are still not fully understood. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,907 Evidence: low

Sex differences in clinical phenotypes of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-04-01

Females with sporadic bvFTD showed worse compulsive behavior (p = 0.026) and language impairments (p = 0.024) compared to females with genetic bvFTD (n = 152). 5 key findings →

Participants: 152 Evidence: low

Blood biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are promising for dementia prediction, but their association with progression across intermediate stages of cognitive decline in the general population remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Impact of frailty status on the effect of a multidomain lifestyle intervention on cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-02-01

Frailty status (prefrail/frail n = 520, robust n = 625) at baseline did not modify the effect of intervention on global cognition during the 2-year follow-up (P-value for frailty × intervention × time interaction > .05). 5 key findings →

Participants: 520 Evidence: high

MASLD was significantly associated with smaller volumes of total grey matter and subcortical grey matter (p < 0.05) and reduced Alzheimer's disease (AD)-signature cortical thickness (multivariable-adjusted β = -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07, -0.01). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29,195 Evidence: low

Across studies, MBI appears to be linked to specific neurobiological markers of AD, including Aβ and tau brain deposition, as well as alterations in the mesolimbic pathway and neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory fluid biomarker levels. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

We included 3074 AD patients (mean age 78.1 years; 59.4% women), of whom 1028 used statins (79.6% simvastatin, 20.4% atorvastatin). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,074 Evidence: moderate

A European Task Force has recently developed and published the concept and protocols for the setup of the innovative health offer of Brain Health Services for the secondary prevention of dementia and cognitive impairment (dBHS). dBHS are outpatient health care facilities where adult persons can find an assessment of their risk of developing cognitive impairment and dementia, have their risk level and contributing factors communicated using appropriate language supported by adequate communication tools, can decide to participate to programs for personalized risk reduction if at higher risk, and benefit from cognitive enhancement interventions. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

NfL holds potential as a blood-based biomarker for symptomatic genetic FTD carriers, with moderate accuracy to distinguish PPD from mild forms including C9orf72 . 3 key findings →

Participants: 474 Evidence: low

At baseline, 219 participants (18%) had CF. The risk for developing CF at 2 years was higher in the control group (risk ratio [RR], 1.88, p = .003). 5 key findings →

Participants: 401 Evidence: high

White matter hyperintensities precede other biomarkers in GRN frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-10-01

Symptomatic GRN carriers showed elevated WMHs, primarily in the frontal lobe, while no significant increase was observed in symptomatic C9orf72 or MAPT carriers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 763 Evidence: low

Lewy body patients showed a significantly higher degree of WMSA in the external capsule cholinergic pathway despite no significant differences in global WMSA compared to controls. 4 key findings →

Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate

China accounts for 1/5 of the global population and China faces a particularly heavy dementia burden due to its rapidly ageing population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.

1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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    Where this research is being discussed: events

Last updated