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 26–50 of 90 studies with an author at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (FR) (page 2 of 4) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 90 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.

Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2007-08-01

The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Transferability of European-derived Alzheimer's disease polygenic risk scores across multiancestry populations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Nature genetics 2025-06-18

A polygenic score (PGS) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) was derived recently from data on genome-wide significant loci in European ancestry populations. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Evidence: high

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

Treatment of vascular risk factors is associated with slower decline in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2009-09-01

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate whether the treatment of VRF is associated with a slower cognitive decline in patients who have AD without cerebrovascular disease (CVD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 72 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Revised Diagnostic Criteria for Vascular Cognitive Impairment and Dementia—The VasCog-2-WSO Criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2025-09-16

Three survey rounds included 49 to 54 participants that agreed on VasCog-2 diagnostic criteria for preclinical, mild, and major dementia levels of vascular cognitive impairment (under the overarching term VCID). 5 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

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

Circulating metabolites and general cognitive ability and dementia: Evidence from 11 cohort studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2018-01-06

Circulating metabolites were consistently associated with cognition, dementia, and lifestyle factors, opening new avenues for prevention of cognitive decline and dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 25,872 Evidence: low

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

Plasma progranulin levels predict progranulin mutation status in frontotemporal dementia patients and asymptomatic family members

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2009-01-21

Mutations in the progranulin gene (GRN) are an important cause of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with ubiquitin and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP43)-positive pathology. 3 key findings →

Participants: 219 Evidence: low

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

A metabolite-based machine learning approach to diagnose Alzheimer-type dementia in blood: Results from the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer disease biomarker discovery cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2019-12-18

This study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. 4 key findings →

Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate

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

Hippocampal T cell infiltration promotes neuroinflammation and cognitive decline in a mouse model of tauopathy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2016-11-05

Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the combined presence of amyloid plaques and tau pathology, the latter being correlated with the progression of clinical symptoms. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

A genome-wide association meta-analysis of plasma Aβ peptides concentrations in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2014-02-18

Amyloid beta (Aβ) peptides are the major components of senile plaques, one of the main pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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