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 76–100 of 113 studies with an author at University of Florida (US) (page 4 of 5) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 113 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.

Utilizing semantic intrusions to identify amyloid positivity in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Neurology 2018-08-03

SIs on the LASSI-L related to PSI and frPSI uniquely differentiated Amy+ and Amy- participants with aMCI and likely reflect deficits with inhibition and source memory in preclinical AD not captured by traditional cognitive measures. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Microglia and Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of neuroscience research 2004-07-01

The most visible and, until very recently, the only hypothesis regarding the involvement of microglial cells in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis is centered around the notion that activated microglia are neurotoxin-producing immune effector cells actively involved in causing the neurodegeneration that is the cause for AD dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In years when older adults subjectively reported fewer difficulties with their finances, they objectively performed better at financial tasks and this relationship became stronger over 10 years. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,802 Evidence: low

PurposeDelirium is a common yet preventable complication of hospitalization, surgery and illness that is associated with poor outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The amino acid sequence of amyloid precursor protein (APP) is highly conserved, and age-related A beta aggregates have been described in a variety of vertebrate animals, with the notable exception of mice and rats. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Type I interferons (IFN-I) are the principal antiviral molecules of the innate immune system and can be made by most cell types, including central nervous system cells. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is a large body of evidence to suggest that improving periconceptional folate status reduces the risk of neonatal neural tube defects. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Klebsiella pneumoniae is infamous for hospital-acquired infections and sepsis, which have also been linked to Alzheimer disease (AD)-related neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Higher segregation, indicated by lower tract and county-level interaction, was associated with better cognitive and everyday functioning levels but faster rates of decline. 5 key findings →

Participants: 695 Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an early stage of non-age-related cognitive decline with an increased risk of progressing to dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

1H-MRS showed significantly lower N-acetylasparatate concentration in DAT and AAMI compared with controls. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Evidence that aging and amyloid promote microglial cell senescence

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Rejuvenation research 2007-03-01

Advanced age and presence of intracerebral amyloid deposits are known to be major risk factors for development of neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and both have been associated with microglial activation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Regression analyses showed that with the inclusion of socioenvironmental factors, the model was significant (p < .001), and sociodemographic (ethnic/race) group differences were not significant (p = .118). 4 key findings →

Participants: 72 Evidence: low

Microglia-mediated neuroinflammation plays a crucial role in memory and cognitive deficits and the development of early mild cognitive impairment (MCI) associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

BackgroundThere are limited studies quantifying the extent to which neighborhood deprivation affects mortality in individuals living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD).ObjectiveTo quantify to what extent neighborhood deprivation affects adverse outcomes in individuals living with AD/ADRD.MethodsWe identified individuals with AD/ADRD using a 15% random sample of national Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

is a heuristic that seeks to develop methodologies capable of identifying subtle behavior(s) that may flag emerging AD and other dementia related syndromes. 2 key findings →

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 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