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 51–71 of 71 studies with an author at Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie (FR) (page 3 of 3) · 28,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 71 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.

An intronic expansion of GGGGCC repeats within the C9ORF72 gene is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Research increasingly suggests that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in older adults, in the absence of objective cognitive dysfunction or depression, may be a harbinger of non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Homozygous TREM2 mutation in a family with atypical frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2014-04-18

TREM2 mutations were first identified in Nasu-Hakola disease, a rare autosomal recessive disease characterized by recurrent fractures because of bone cysts and presenile dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebrovascular disease (CVD) and amyloid-β (Aβ) often coexist, but their influence on neurodegeneration and cognition in predementia stages remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 99 Evidence: moderate

ANOVA revealed significant group differences in lateral ventricular SUVR across the Alzheimer, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy control groups ( P = 0.004). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

ApoE immunoreactivity and microglial cells in Alzheimer's disease brain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Neuroscience letters 1995-07-01

The spatial relationship of apolipoprotein E (apoE)-like immunoreactivity (IR) to amyloid beta-peptide (A beta), astrocytes and microglial cells in the brain of Alzheimer's disease was studied by double immunolabelling. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In Alzheimer disease, a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental factors may contribute to changes in beta-amyloid precursor protein (APP) expression, beta-amyloid peptide deposition, and neuronal loss. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is cleaved by β- and γ-secretases to generate the β-amyloid (Aβ) peptides, which are present in large amounts in the amyloid plaques of Alzheimer disease (AD) patient brains. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Defining the spectrum of frontotemporal dementias associated with TARDBP mutations

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Neurology. Genetics 2016-05-26

We describe the largest series of patients with TARDBP mutations presenting with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and review the cases in the literature to precisely characterize FTD diseases associated with this genotype. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of brain amyloid beta is now clinically available in several countries including the United States and the United Kingdom, but not Canada. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

We found 5 distinct clusters of subjects (N=38, N=16, N=24, N=14, N=21) with a composition statistically independent from that obtained using available clinical diagnostic criteria (each cluster included all phenotypical groups). 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Caspase cleaved amyloid precursor protein (APPcc) and SET are increased and mislocalized in the neuronal cytoplasm in Alzheimer Disease (AD) brains. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

SET is a multifunctional protein, but when present in the cytoplasm, acts as a powerful inhibitor of phosphatase 2A. We previously observed that in CA1 of Down syndrome (DS) patients, the level of SET is increased, and SET is translocated to the cytoplasm and associated with the hyperphosphorylation of tau at ser202/thr205. 2 key findings →

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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.

1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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