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

27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 28 studies with an author at Université Bordeaux Segalen (FR) (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 28 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; 13,259 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.

Increased expression of BIN1 mediates Alzheimer genetic risk by modulating tau pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2013-02-12

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified a region upstream the BIN1 gene as the most important genetic susceptibility locus in Alzheimer's disease (AD) after APOE. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

Antihypertensive drugs, prevention of cognitive decline and dementia: a systematic review of observational studies, randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, with discussion of potential mechanisms

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. CNS drugs 2015-02-01

In the seven longitudinal studies assessing the effect of antihypertensive medication on cognitive impairment or cognitive decline, antihypertensive drugs appeared to be beneficial. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,346,176 Evidence: high

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

Excessive sleepiness is predictive of cognitive decline in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Sleep 2012-09-01

Study objectives To examine the association of sleep complaints reported at baseline (insomnia complaints and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS)) and medication, with cognitive decline in community-dwelling elderly. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,894 Evidence: moderate

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

Natural history of decline in instrumental activities of daily living performance over the 10 years preceding the clinical diagnosis of dementia: a prospective population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2007-11-20

This study is the first to show that, 10 years before the clinical diagnosis of dementia, subjects who later developed dementia performed worse in complex activities of daily living, which may constitute an early marker of the disease. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate

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

Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The Lancet. Neurology 2007-08-01

The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Classification of Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia using routine clinical and cognitive measures across multicentric underrepresented samples: A cross sectional observational study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Lancet regional health. Americas 2022-11-03

A fully automated computational approach included classical statistical methods, support vector machine procedures, and machine learning techniques (random forest and sequential feature selection procedures). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,794 Evidence: moderate

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

Restriction in complex activities of daily living in MCI: impact on outcome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2006-08-01

Inclusion of instrumental activities of daily living restriction in the criteria of mild cognitive impairment improves the prediction of dementia and the stability of this status over time. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,517 Evidence: moderate

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

Gender and incidence of dementia in the Framingham Heart Study from mid-adult life

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2014-01-10

Selective survival of men with a healthier cardiovascular risk profile and hence lower propensity to dementia might partly explain the higher LTR of dementia/AD in women. 1 key finding →

Participants: 7,901 Evidence: low

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

Amnestic syndrome of the medial temporal type identifies prodromal AD: a longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2007-11-01

The amnestic syndrome of the medial temporal type, defined by the Free and Cued Selective Recall Reminding Test, is able to distinguish patients at an early stage of Alzheimer disease from mild cognitive impairment non-converters. 2 key findings →

Participants: 251 Evidence: low

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

Metabolic syndrome and risk for incident Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia: the Three-City Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Diabetes care 2008-10-22

The observed relation between high triglycerides, diabetes, and vascular dementia emphasizes the need for detection and treatment of vascular risk factors in older individuals in order to prevent the likelihood of clinical dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

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

A genome-wide association meta-analysis of plasma Aβ peptides concentrations in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2014-02-18

Amyloid beta (Aβ) peptides are the major components of senile plaques, one of the main pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

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

High frequency of potentially pathogenic SORL1 mutations in autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2012-04-03

Performing exome sequencing in 14 autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer disease (ADEOAD) index cases without mutation on known genes (amyloid precursor protein (APP), presenilin1 (PSEN1) and presenilin2 (PSEN2)), we found that in five patients, the SORL1 gene harbored unknown nonsense (n=1) or missense (n=4) mutations. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Contribution to Alzheimer's disease risk of rare variants in TREM2, SORL1, and ABCA7 in 1779 cases and 1273 controls

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2017-07-14

We performed whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing in 927 late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) cases, 852 early-onset AD (EOAD) cases, and 1273 controls from France. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Instrumental activities of daily living as a screening tool for cognitive impairment and dementia in elderly community dwellers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1992-11-01

The four IADL score could be incorporated into the screening procedure for dementia in elderly community dwellers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

↑ 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