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 26–50 of 74 studies with an author at Global Brain Health Institute (US) (page 2 of 3) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 74 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.

Under Bronfenbrenner's macrosystem framework, we highlight key quantitative and qualitative studies linking S/SDOH with AD/ADRD, identify scientific gaps in the literature, and propose guidance for future research. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Across Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs), the fight against dementia faces pressing challenges, such as heterogeneity, diversity, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Allostatic-Interoceptive Overload in Frontotemporal Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2022-02-24

These results suggest that bvFTD may be characterized by an allostatic-interoceptive overload manifested in ongoing electrophysiological markers, brain atrophy, functional networks, and cognition. 4 key findings →

Participants: 94 Evidence: low

Neurons selectively targeted in frontotemporal dementia reveal early stage TDP-43 pathobiology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2018-12-03

TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) aggregation is the most common pathological hallmark in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and characterizes nearly all patients with motor neuron disease (MND). 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

Digital biomarker prognostic models can be a useful tool to assist large-scale population screening for the early detection of cognitive impairment and patient monitoring over time. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The Electrophysiology Professional Interest Area (EPIA) and Global Brain Consortium endorsed recommendations on candidate electroencephalography (EEG) measures for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Wealth Disparities in End-of-Life Symptom Burden Among Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-03-06

Of 8976 decedents (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 4927 women [55.1%] women) in the cohort, 2197 (22.5%) were included in the low wealth category, 4534 (50.5%) in the medium wealth category, and 2245 (27.1%) in the high wealth category. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Hospice Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Parkinson Disease and Dementia With Lewy Bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-03-04

Of 11 327 324 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in hospice between 2010 and 2020 who met eligibility criteria (mean [SD] age, 85.2 [7.5] years; 781 763 [63.0%] female), there were 958 182 (8.4%) with a primary diagnosis of AD, 232 864 (2.1%) with PD, and 49 340 (0.4%) with DLB. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We investigated whether specific SLEs are associated with AD pathology and neurodegeneration and how these associations differ by gender and education. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

In the within-language condition, combined speech timing and lexico-semantic features yielded maximal classification (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]=0.88), outperforming single-feature models (AUC=0.79 for timing features; AUC=0.80 for lexico-semantic features). 5 key findings →

Participants: 211 Evidence: low

In total, 156 individuals were assessed for eligibility, and 79 (51%) were recruited (mean age 61.6 ± 6.9 (range 60-75) years; 68% male). 5 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that microglial and astrocyte reactivity, measured through fluid biomarkers, occur early and impact the amyloid cascade on the preclinical Alzheimer´s continuum. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Digital technology is transforming the development of drugs for Alzheimer's disease and was the topic of the Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable on its May 23-24, 2017 meeting. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

RBC DHA was associated with a positive (improved) global cognition (PACC) rate of change (estimate: 0.011; 95% CI: 0.001, 0.021; P = 0.024). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular risk factors and the allostatic interoceptive network in dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Cardiovascular Research 2025-10-01

We recruited 1501 participants (304 with FTLD, 512 with AD, and 685 healthy controls) from the Multi-Partner Consortium to Expand Dementia Research in Latin America (ReDLat). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,501 Evidence: low

Continued Use of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Hospice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2025-03-24

This cohort study examines the use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine among older adults with dementia after admission into hospice care despite the medications’ limited clinical benefit following enrollment into hospice. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Cross-sectional studies suggest a limited relationship between accelerated epigenetic aging derived from epigenetic clocks, and Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology or risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Odds ratios for death, dementia, and delirium using anticholinergic-polypharmacy pseudoscales (median = 1.09-1.10) were greater than those of general-polypharmacy pseudoscales (1.05-1.06). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

↑ 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