alzhub.org
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.

Research

28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 51–75 of 117 studies with an author at Weill Cornell Medicine (US) (page 3 of 5) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 117 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.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 14,058 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Effectiveness of Advance Care Planning for End-of-Life Outcomes in Nursing Home Residents With Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2025-11-27

Although ACP programs in nursing homes may increase DNR directives, evidence of other EoL outcomes remains limited and inconsistent. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: early

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Neuronal SIRT1 activation as a novel mechanism underlying the prevention of Alzheimer disease amyloid neuropathology by calorie restriction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. The Journal of biological chemistry 2006-06-02

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD)+-dependent sirtuins have been identified to be key regulators in the lifespan extending effects of calorie restriction (CR) in a number of species. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Perivascular macrophages mediate the neurovascular and cognitive dysfunction associated with hypertension

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Journal of clinical investigation 2016-11-14

Hypertension is a leading risk factor for dementia, but the mechanisms underlying its damaging effects on the brain are poorly understood. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Alzheimer's disease-linked risk alleles elevate microglial cGAS-associated senescence and neurodegeneration in a tauopathy model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neuron 2024-09-30

The strongest risk factors for late-onset sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD) include the ε4 allele of apolipoprotein E (APOE), the R47H variant of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2), and female sex. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

A new proposal for randomized start design to investigate disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Clinical trials (London, England) 2011-02-01

The greatest advantage of the RSD proposed in this article is its ability to critically address the question on a DM effect. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Artificial intelligence and open science in discovery of disease-modifying medicines for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Cell reports. Medicine 2024-02-01

The high failure rate of clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementia (ADRD) is due to a lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of disease, and this deficit may be addressed by applying artificial intelligence (AI) to "big data" to rapidly and effectively expand therapeutic development efforts. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

DNA methylation age from peripheral blood predicts progression to Alzheimer’s disease, white matter disease burden, and cortical atrophy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. npj Dementia 2025-05-27

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Broadening dementia risk models: building on the 2024 Lancet Commission report for a more inclusive global framework

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. EBioMedicine 2025-09-27

The 2024 Lancet Commission Report on dementia prevention has identified 14 modifiable risk factors that account for approximately 45% of global dementia cases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: An Update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 2022-11-02

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) is a term introduced in 2010 to encompass a spectrum of MRI findings observed in patients receiving investigational anti-amyloid beta (Aβ) immunotherapies for Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Endoplasmic reticulum and trans-Golgi network generate distinct populations of Alzheimer beta-amyloid peptides

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1999-01-01

The excessive generation and accumulation of 40- and 42-aa beta-amyloid peptides (Abeta40/Abeta42) in selectively vulnerable brain regions is a major neuropathological feature of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of Reproductive History With Brain MRI Biomarkers of Dementia Risk in Midlife

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Neurology 2021-11-03

Reproductive history events signaling more estrogen exposure such as premenopausal status, longer reproductive span, higher number of children, and use of HT and HC were associated with larger GMV in women in midlife. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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