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

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–21 of 21 studies with an author at University College London (GB) published 2010 · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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; 12,859 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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in use of dementia treatment, care, and research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry 2010-03-01

The number of people with dementia from minority ethnic (ME) groups in western countries is projected to rise dramatically, and they may be less able to access dementia services. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,090 Evidence: high

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

Nonpharmacological therapies in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of efficacy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2010-09-10

NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Exome sequencing reveals VCP mutations as a cause of familial ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neuron 2010-12-01

Using exome sequencing, we identified a p.R191Q amino acid change in the valosin-containing protein (VCP) gene in an Italian family with autosomal dominantly inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). 1 key finding →

Evidence: moderate

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

Beta-amyloid burden in the temporal neocortex is related to hippocampal atrophy in elderly subjects without dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2010-01-01

The strong correlation between hippocampal atrophy and beta-amyloid (Abeta) burden in the Pittsburgh compound B-positive healthy control group suggests that Abeta deposition in the inferior temporal neocortex is related to hippocampal synaptic and neuronal degeneration. 3 key findings →

Participants: 32 Evidence: low

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

Clinical, genetic and pathological heterogeneity of frontotemporal dementia: a review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2010-10-22

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is the second most common young-onset dementia and is clinically characterised by progressive behavioural change, executive dysfunction and language difficulties. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

FUS pathology defines the majority of tau- and TDP-43-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2010-05-20

Through an international consortium, we have collected 37 tau- and TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43)-negative frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) cases, and present here the first comprehensive analysis of these cases in terms of neuropathology, genetics, demographics and clinical data. 92% (34/37) had fused in sarcoma (FUS) protein pathology, indicating that FTLD-FUS is an important FTLD subtype. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Making decisions for people with dementia who lack capacity: qualitative study of family carers in UK

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2010-08-18

The following strategies helped with implementation of decisions: introducing change slowly; organising legal changes for the carer as well as the patient; involving a professional to persuade the patient to accept services; and emphasising that services optimised, not impeded, independence. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

People with dementia living alone: what are their needs and what kind of support are they receiving?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. International psychogeriatrics 2010-03-10

This study illustrates the need to identify these individuals and to make provisions among social service agencies to monitor their well-being regularly and provide a higher level of support when needs are identified. 3 key findings →

Participants: 141,460 Evidence: low

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

Neuropathology of variants of progressive supranuclear palsy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Current opinion in neurology 2010-08-01

Neurodegenerative tauopathies, of which progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is one of the most common, are clinically heterogeneous, reflecting differences in distribution and biochemical composition of tau pathology. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

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

Relationships between age and late progression of Parkinson's disease: a clinico-pathological study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2010-04-05

To investigate the relationships between age, the advanced clinical stages of Parkinson's disease and neuropathology, we surveyed 129 case records from donors with pathologically proven Parkinson's disease at the Queen Square Brain Bank for Neurological Disorders. 4 key findings →

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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