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 126–150 of 161 studies with an author at Stanford Medicine (US) (page 6 of 7) · 28,180 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.

Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (n=11 moderate-to-severe SVD, mean age 72 ± 10 years, 6 women; n = 21 none-to-minimal SVD, mean age 70 ± 10 years, 12 women). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In long-term care residents, ADL scores worsened by a mean of 0.29 points (95%CI = 0.27, 0.31) per 3 months and antihypertensive deprescribing did not impact this worsening (difference between groups -0.04 points every 3 months, 95%CI = -0.15, 0.06). 5 key findings →

Participants: 12,238 Evidence: low

The mean age of the participants was 68 ± 9 years and 39% were female. 5 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 759 Evidence: low

Alpha-synuclein (aSyn) post-translational modifications (PTM), especially phosphorylation at serine 129 and C-terminal truncations, are highly enriched in Lewy bodies (LB), Lewy neurites, and other pathological aggregates in Parkinson's disease and synucleinopathies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Patients with dementia, schizophrenia and depression were tested with analogous auditory and visual event-related potential (ERP) paradigms designed to elicit a large P3. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia and mitigating amyloid-β (Aβ) levels may serve as a rational therapeutic avenue to slow AD progression. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We found that ∼25% of donors lived in high deprivation contexts, 52% had at least one incidence of CVD, and the cohort identified as .05). 3 key findings →

Participants: 7,187 Evidence: moderate

Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) disrupts our most human social and emotional functions. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

NHB Hispanic, and NHW participants prevalences were APOE ε4 (32.2%, 27.4%, 17.6%), diabetes (26.1%, 35.0%, 13.9%), hypertension (79.0%, 63.6%, 58.2%), obesity (56.8%, 50.3%, 38.5%), and tobacco dependence (12.9%, 7.5%, 3.9%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Caregivers had higher levels of 8 am, 5 pm, and 9 pm log cortisol as well as higher perceived stress than noncaregivers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Exploring the unmet needs of Latino dementia caregivers: a qualitative study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. The Gerontologist 2025-09-09

Four themes were derived from the data analysis as key areas of caregiving needs for Latinos: need to connect socially with others; need for resources to provide care; need to understand dementia and navigating existing resources and future care planning; and need for empathic, culturally congruent healthcare. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, with an estimated 6.9 million Americans aged 65 and older living with Alzheimer dementia today, with this number projected to grow to 13.8 million by 2060. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

IMAGING OF THE BONE ARCHITECTURE IN THE CONTEXT OF ALZHEIMER DISEASE

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Osteoarthritis Imaging 2026-01-01

Female Psen1 mutation(L166P) mice were found to have reductions in whole-body mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content as early as one month and a sustained bone phenotype with age with loss in cortical and trabecular properties compared to age-and gendermatched wildtype control mice, whereas male mice did not (Fig.1A-C). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Amyloid-targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have introduced a new era in the treatment of early Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Discoveries in Down syndrome: moving basic science to clinical care

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Progress in brain research 2012-01-01

This review describes recent discoveries in neurobiology of Down syndrome (DS) achieved with use of mouse genetic models and provides an overview of experimental approaches aimed at development of pharmacological restoration of cognitive function in people with this developmental disorder. 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 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