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 226–250 of 263 studies with an author at McGill University (CA) (page 10 of 11) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 263 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.

Agitation in Demented Patients in an Acute Care Hospital: Prevalence, Disruptiveness, and Staff Burden

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. International Psychogeriatrics 2001-06-01

Ninety-five percent of the patients with dementia were reported to have at least one agitated behavior; 75% had at least one moderately disruptive behavior. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Examining equity in service use across socioeconomic status in people with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Behavior & Socioeconomics of Aging 2025-02-19

Stark differences across SES in service use by people with dementia may indicate different health needs and/or allude to pervasive health inequities. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Canadian Consensus Guidelines on Use of Amyloid Imaging in Canada: Update and Future Directions from the Specialized Task Force on Amyloid imaging in Canada

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques 2016-02-26

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

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

Inequities in dementia diagnosis and care: insights from a universal health care system

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Of the 193,834 community-dwelling people with a new diagnosis of dementia, around 20% belonged to each material deprivation category. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Intercellular signaling and synaptic deconstruction uncovered by single-cell and spatial transcriptomics in an AD tauopathy model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Communications Biology 2025-11-17

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in elderly individuals worldwide; however, all mechanisms leading to disease onset and progression are not well understood. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Clinical recognition of frontotemporal dementia with right temporal predominance: a consensus statement from the International Working Group

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Communications Medicine 2025-12-12

Accurate diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with right anterior temporal lobe (RATL) predominance remains challenging due to lack of clinical characterization, and standardized terminology. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The burden of stroke, ischaemic heart disease, and dementia in Africa, 1990–2021: an ecological analysis of the Global Burden of Disease 2021

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. The Lancet Global Health 2025-06-25

In Africa in 2021, 17·3 (95% UI 15·5-19·2) million DALYs were lost due to strokes, 17·6 (15·5-19·6) million were lost due to ischaemic heart diseases, and 1·8 (0·8-4·0) million were lost due to dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Multimodal PET Imaging of Amyloid and Tau Pathology in Alzheimer Disease and Non-Alzheimer Disease Dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. PET clinics 2017-04-18

Biomarkers of the molecular pathology underpinning dementia syndromes are increasingly recognized as crucial for diagnosis and development of disease-modifying treatments. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

Fluid biomarkers for diagnosing dementia: rationale and the Canadian Consensus on Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia recommendations for Canadian physicians

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2013-11-25

Fluid biomarkers improve the diagnostic accuracy in dementia and provide an objective measure potentially useful as a therapeutic response in clinical trials. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

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

The relationship between neuroinflammation and clinical features of dementia: An investigation of GFAP levels in Alzheimer's disease and related disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We found significant main effects between GFAP groups and age, diagnosis of AD, diagnosis of VaD, MoCA, sex, CRP and BMI. 5 key findings →

Participants: 60 Evidence: low

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

Characterization of endothelin-converting enzyme 1 as a key enzyme in the multienzyme Aβ degradation pathway

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2025-10-27

Altered β-amyloid (Aβ) homeostasis is a critical event triggering the shift from healthy aging to Alzheimer disease (AD) through the overproduction and impaired clearance of Aβ peptides. 2 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