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 161 studies with an author at Stanford Medicine (US) (page 3 of 7) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 161 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.

Association of Klotho-VS Heterozygosity With Risk of Alzheimer Disease in Individuals Who Carry APOE4

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-07-01

The genotype KL-VSHET+ is associated with reduced AD risk and Aβ burden in individuals who are aged 60 to 80 years, cognitively normal, and carrying APOE4. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Haploinsufficiency leads to neurodegeneration in C9ORF72 ALS/FTD human induced motor neurons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature medicine 2018-02-05

An intronic GGGGCC repeat expansion in C9ORF72 is the most common cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), but the pathogenic mechanism of this repeat remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

In multi-adjusted models, higher adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet was associated with higher total mean cortical thickness, and thicker cortex in Alzheimer's disease-signature regions, while a higher adherence to the MeDi was associated with better cognitive performance. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 615 Evidence: moderate

Soluble TREM2 is elevated in Parkinson's disease subgroups with increased CSF tau

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2020-03-01

Parkinson's disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer's disease and affects 1% of the population above 60 years old. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 165 Evidence: low

Platelet factors attenuate inflammation and rescue cognition in ageing

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Nature 2023-08-16

Identifying therapeutics to delay, and potentially reverse, age-related cognitive decline is critical in light of the increased incidence of dementia-related disorders forecasted in the growing older population 1 . 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Accounting for educationalfactors, vascular factors, and Aβ burden diminished, but did not eliminate, racial differences in PACC5 performance longitudinally. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 296 Evidence: moderate

Although Aβ did not differ by sex, cognitive decline was greater in females with higher Aβ. 3 key findings →

Participants: 755 Evidence: low

Genetic variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) have been linked to Nasu-Hakola disease, Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and FTD-like syndrome without bone involvement. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Autophagy is the principal cellular pathway for degradation of long-lived proteins and organelles and regulates cell fate in response to stress. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis did not support differences in orexin-A between AD and controls. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

A reliable method of detecting Alzheimer disease (AD) in its prodromal state is needed for patient stratification in clinical trials or for personalizing existing or potential upcoming therapies. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 928 Evidence: moderate

Recent functional imaging studies have revealed coactivation in a distributed network of cortical regions that characterizes the resting state, or default mode, of the human brain.

Amyloid PET imaging has been crucial for detecting the accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) deposits in the brain and to study Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 13,409 Evidence: low

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are frequently seen on brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of older people. 1 key finding →

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 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