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 51–74 of 74 studies with an author at Global Brain Health Institute (US) (page 3 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.

The model accurately identified dementia subtypes using measures readily available in underrepresented settings, with a similar performance than advanced biomarkers. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dissemination of the Care Ecosystem Collaborative Care Model for Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2025-01-06

Implementation efforts resulted in the adoption of the Care Ecosystem at 28 health systems and eight community-based organizations, including 22 participants in Medicare's Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) payment model. 5 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

Latin America’s diverse genetic landscape provides a unique opportunity to study Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,162 Evidence: low

Among 52 participants recruited, 27 were former caregivers, 16 were current caregivers, and nine were persons with dementia; experiences reflected Alzheimer's (n = 18), sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob (n = 12), Lewy body (n = 7), and other dementias (n = 15). 5 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

In the LA cohort only, higher WMHs load was associated with greater GM atrophy across all groups (HCs, AD, bvFTD), with a specific neurodegenerative pattern involving orbitofrontal, cingulate, and temporal areas. 5 key findings →

Participants: 402 Evidence: moderate

"Rapid-type" caregivers (n = 12) had a median age of 59 (range 45-73) years; 6 were female, and 9 were spouses. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

They are often found in middle-aged individuals and are associated with a greater risk of stroke and vascular dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,072 Evidence: low

Among people with dementia, predicted 1-year mortality was higher among those with hip fracture (35.4%) versus those without hip fracture (14.8%), with similar patterns for pneumonia (49.6% vs. 13.0%). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

People with dementia have complex medical, functional, and social needs and experience highly variable care quality and outcomes across the U.S. health care system. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has emerged as a promising biomarker of astrocytic reactivity in preclinical Alzheimer´s Disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

hexanucleotide repeat expansions (HRE) and WMH in bvFTD patients. bvFTD and svPPA are associated with elevated WMH burden independent of CVRF. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Age-related hearing loss and dementia risk across the lifespan: mechanisms, equity, and prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neuroscience 2025-08-28

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) has emerged as a significant and potentially modifiable risk factor for neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Early detection of abnormal neurodegeneration amidst normal cognitive aging is crucial. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Twenty-six percent of eligible ED users contacted elected for study enrollment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 160 Evidence: low

Residence in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods may be associated with lower amyloid pathology in cognitively impaired individuals. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Peruvian Population Empowers Discovery of a TREM2 Missense Variant in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Peruvian GWAS identified Amerindian ancestry specific exonic AD susceptibility variant p.H157Y. This variant has been previously reported as AD marker in Han Chinese populations with extreme effect size, but its rarity and contradictory findings in other groups suggest a potential ancestry‐specific effect. 4 key findings →

Participants: 567 Evidence: low

Adaptation and Validation of Brief Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool in Uganda

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-23

For TabCAT tests, there were no notable floor or ceiling effects, and test scores were associated with age and education as expected. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 563 Evidence: moderate

Study of Ancestry, Health, Environment, and Late-Life Neurodegeneration (SAHEL)

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-24

INTRODUCTIONDementia research in sub-Saharan Africa remains limited despite rapid population aging and substantial ancestral, environmental, and vascular diversity. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 102 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