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 126–150 of 154 studies with an author at Case Western Reserve University (US) (page 6 of 7) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 154 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.

Palliative Care Resource Utilization in Patients with Prion Disease

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

172 patients with symptomatic prion disease were identified. 165 (94.8%) patients experienced ≥1 symptom/sign likely to benefit from palliative care, yet only 113 (65.7%) patients accessed palliative care resources during the illness course (hospice care: 39.7%; palliative care consultation: 14.9% inpatient, 6.9% outpatient; both: 3.4%). 5 key findings →

Participants: 172 Evidence: low

Recent advances indicate soluble amyloid beta (A beta) protein is produced constitutively during normal metabolism of the amyloid precursor protein (APP). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Heterogeneity in the Genetic Architecture of Alzheimer disease (AD) across Ancestry Groups

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Overall SNP‐based heritability estimates using this restricted set of variants varied: AA ( h 2 = 0.13, SE=0.05), NHW ( h 2 = 0.14, SE=0.01), AsA ( h 2 = 0.29, SE=0.09) and HL ( h 2 = 0.48, SE=0.17). 2 key findings →

Participants: 6,343 Evidence: low

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

Making the Case for the Accelerated Withdrawal of Aducanumab

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2022-01-01

Food and Drug Administration-s (FDA) approval of aducanumab (Aduhelm® in the US) as a treatment for mild cognitive impairment of the Alzheimer type and Alzheimer-s disease has raised such major concerns about efficacy, safety, FDA processes, and regulatory capture that Biogen-s license to market this biologic should be immediately withdrawn. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Dementia disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latino caregivers, and while some interventions exist, their consideration of intersectional factors remains unclear. 1 key finding →

Participants: 41 Evidence: low

Despite substantial investment in biomedical and pharmaceutical research over the past two decades, the global prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) is still rising. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The AD PRS was associated with AD in the ADSP sample, with odds ratios per standard deviation ranging from 1.14 to 1.52 across ancestry groups and robust validation in independent cohorts (Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer Disease (AD) is a highly polygenic dementia that presents with relatively earlier onset (≤65yo; EOAD) in about 5% of cases. 2 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: low

The vascular and parenchymal amyloid deposits in Alzheimer disease (AD), normal aging and Down syndrome are mainly composed of a 4 kDa polypeptide (A4), which derives from a larger precursor protein (APP). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

For co-residing care partners, high (p = 0.001), increased (p = 0.001), and decreased (p = 0.001) fall frequency over 2 years was significantly associated with emotional difficulties. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Patterns of discourse cohesion and coherence in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. The Journal of speech and hearing disorders 1988-02-01

Patterns of discourse--as reflected in the use of propositions, cohesion devices, and in judgments of coherence--in the speech of 6 well elderly and 6 patients with senile dementia of the Alzheimer type (SDAT) during topic-centered interviews were compared. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Down syndrome (DS) is the most common genetically defined cause of intellectual disability and accounts for over 50% of the cases of Alzheimer-type dementia in persons younger than 50 years of age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Soluble amyloid-beta in the brain: the scarlet pimpernel

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 31 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2006-01-01

Researchers since the 1990s have predominantly focused on the amyloid hypothesis and the formation of amyloid fibrils as the culprit behind AD when we began working on soluble Abeta (sAbeta). 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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