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 51–75 of 147 studies with an author at Technical University of Munich (DE) (page 3 of 6) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 147 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.

Microglial activation occurs early in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and previous studies reported both detrimental and protective effects of microglia on AD progression. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment and dementia: the importance of modifiable risk factors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Deutsches Arzteblatt international 2011-11-04

Modifiable risk factors for MCI should be sought (at the very latest) in persons who already have MCI, as their optimal treatment may improve these patients' cognitive performance or keep the existing deficits from progressing. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

In vivo imaging and quantification of amyloid-β plaque (Aβ) burden in small-animal models of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a valuable tool for translational research such as developing specific imaging markers and monitoring new therapy approaches. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

TREM2 deficiency impairs chemotaxis and microglial responses to neuronal injury

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. EMBO reports 2017-05-08

Sequence variations in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) have been linked to an increased risk for neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Greater intracranial volume (ICV) has been associated with less severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) symptoms at a given level of cerebral pathology. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate

Serum neurofilament light chain in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Neurology 2018-09-12

As serum NfL correlates with functional impairment and brain atrophy in bvFTD at different disease stages, we propose it as marker of disease severity, paving the way for its future use as outcome measure for clinical trials. 1 key finding →

Participants: 74 Evidence: low

Examination of the current top candidate genes for AD in a genome-wide association study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2009-01-06

With the advent of technologies that allow simultaneous genotyping of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) across the genome, the genetic contributions to complex diseases can be explored at an unprecedented detail. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is essential for the transition of homeostatic microglia to a disease-associated microglial state. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Upon demyelinating injury, microglia orchestrate a regenerative response that promotes myelin repair, thereby restoring rapid signal propagation and protecting axons from further damage. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neither fibrillar nor nonfibrillar Aβ content alone sufficed to explain the Aβ PET findings in either AD model. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

From an ethical perspective, important benefits of embodied AI applications in mental health include new modes of treatment, opportunities to engage hard-to-reach populations, better patient response, and freeing up time for physicians. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

[(11)C]PIB retention in the neocortical and subcortical brain regions was significantly higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 97 Evidence: low

Sequence variations occurring in the gene encoding the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) support an essential function of microglia and innate immunity in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genetic variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) increase the risk for several neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 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