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 151–175 of 337 studies with an author at Mayo Clinic in Florida (US) (page 7 of 14) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 337 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.

Tar DNA Binding Protein-43 (TDP-43) is a principle component of inclusions in many cases of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD-U) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Inclusions of TAR DNA-binding protein-43 (TDP-43), a nuclear protein that regulates transcription and RNA splicing, are the defining histopathological feature of frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive inclusions (FTLD-Us) and sporadic and familial forms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Lewy bodies and parkinsonism in families with parkin mutations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2001-09-01

Previous work has established that compound mutations and homozygous loss of function of the parkin gene cause early-onset, autosomal recessive parkinsonism. 4 key findings →

Participants: 38 Evidence: low

Vaccination is increasingly acknowledged as an effective preventive measure not only against specific infections, but also for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical yet challenging, particularly in younger individuals. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate

Plasma p‐tau217 has clinical, neuroimaging, and neuropathological correlates in sporadic FTD and may identify FTD cases with AD co‐pathology. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 620 Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal patterns of clinical decline differ between LPA and PCA but are heterogeneous and related to different patterns of topographic spread. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate

Selected CSF biomarkers at presentation were associated with etiologic diagnoses and treatment responsiveness in patients with heterogeneous causes of RPD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 44 Evidence: low

Several heterozygous missense mutations in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) have recently been linked to risk for a number of neurological disorders including Alzheimer disease (AD), Parkinson disease, and frontotemporal dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

These results suggest that GSTO locus variants may lower brain GSTO2 levels and consequently confer AD risk in older age. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

These data suggest that among aged subjects with cognitive impairment and/or parkinsonism, the MSQ has adequate SN and SP for the diagnosis of RBD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

Pathology of Neurodegenerative Diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology 2017-07-05

Neurodegenerative disorders are characterized by progressive loss of selectively vulnerable populations of neurons, which contrasts with select static neuronal loss because of metabolic or toxic disorders. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common dementing illness in the elderly, but there is equivocal evidence regarding the frequency of other disorders such as Lewy body disease (LBD), vascular dementia (VaD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and hippocampal sclerosis (HS). 5 key findings →

Participants: 382 Evidence: low

Hexanucleotide expansions in C9ORF72 are the most frequent genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Updated TDP-43 in Alzheimer's disease staging scheme

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2016-01-25

In this study, we update the TDP-43 in Alzheimer's disease staging scheme by assessing the topography of TDP-43 in 193 cases of Alzheimer's disease, in 14 different brain regions (eight previously described plus six newly reported) and use conditional probability to model the spread of TDP-43 across the 14 brain regions. 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