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 218 studies with an author at National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB) (page 7 of 9) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 218 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.

It is largely unknown how alcohol use affects the risk of Alzheimer`s disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 301 Evidence: moderate

To investigate the relationships between age, the advanced clinical stages of Parkinson's disease and neuropathology, we surveyed 129 case records from donors with pathologically proven Parkinson's disease at the Queen Square Brain Bank for Neurological Disorders. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Of the 250 participants, 121 (48.4%) were female and the mean age at follow-up was 76.06 (SD 0.48). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate

High-Level Alzheimer Disease Neuropathological Change Following Iatrogenic Exposure

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Neurology 2026-03-30

The study describes 4 males who developed dementia following confirmed or suspected c-hGH treatment in childhood (age at symptom onset between 47 and 60 years) with cognitive syndromes characterized by prominent language involvement. 4 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

We investigated whether β-amyloid, cortical thickness in medial temporal lobe structures, neuroinflammation, and sociodemographic factors were associated with greater anxious-depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 confinement. 5 key findings →

Participants: 921 Evidence: moderate

Familial Danish dementia (FDD), also known as heredopathia ophthalmo-oto-encephalica, is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by cataracts, deafness, progressive ataxia, and dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We examine the evidence for free radical involvement and oxidative stress in the pathological process underlying Parkinson's disease, from postmortem brain tissue. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

We provide microarray data comparing genome-wide differential expression and pathology throughout life in four lines of "amyloid" transgenic mice (mutant human APP, PSEN1, or APP/PSEN1) and "TAU" transgenic mice (mutant human MAPT gene). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The genetic causes of basal ganglia calcification, dementia, and bone cysts: DAP12 and TREM2

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2005-05-01

Polycystic lipomembranous osteodysplasia with sclerosing leukoencephalopathy (PLOSL), or Nasu-Hakola disease, is a presenile dementia associated with loss of myelin, basal ganglia calcification, and bone cysts. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of tau protein were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay which measures both normal and hyperphosphorylated tau. 4 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

Genetics and molecular pathogenesis of sporadic and hereditary cerebral amyloid angiopathies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2009-02-19

In cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), amyloid fibrils deposit in walls of arteries, arterioles and less frequently in veins and capillaries of the central nervous system, often resulting in secondary degenerative vascular changes. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Evidence for divergent cortical organisation in Parkinson’s disease and Lewy Body Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Nature Communications 2025-11-25

Dementia is a defining feature of Lewy body disease: its timing and onset distinguish different clinical diagnoses, and its effect on quality of life is profound. 1 key finding →

Participants: 108 Evidence: low

Amyloid-beta (Abeta) peptide pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) comprises extracellular plaques and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

New personalized endpoints that are clinically meaningful to individuals and their families should be developed. 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