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 551–572 of 572 studies with an author at University of Pennsylvania (US) (page 23 of 23) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

BackgroundA growing number of older adults in the United States have multiple chronic conditions which contribute to decreased functional ability and increased healthcare utilization. 5 key findings →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

The Tailored Activity Program (TAP), an intervention for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, has been shown to reduce behavioral symptoms for PLWD and caregiver burden. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Thirty-four years ago, amyloid-β 1-42 peptide was identified in amyloid plaques from brain tissue obtained from patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and Down syndrome. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and dementia frequently co-occur, yet the biological mechanisms underlying this comorbidity remain incompletely understood. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Participants described AI tools as potentially helpful for obtaining information, monitoring patients, managing medications and appointments, providing companionship, and conducting logistical tasks. 1 key finding →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Aducanumab-Related Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: Paean or Lament?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Clinical nuclear medicine 2022-04-22

We believe that the amyloid-PET scans, perceived as showing decreasing amyloid deposits, are an expression of increased cerebral cell death due to aducanumab treatment, so that with time one should instead expect a worsening and not an improvement in the treated patients' condition. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained attention as a tool to support dementia care through efficient and personalized interventions. 5 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

Leveraging African Ancestry Diversity for Global Advances in Alzheimer Disease Genetics

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 33 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Our findings highlight the potential of diverse genomic backgrounds to uncover protective genetic factors, such as the African-specific protective PSG2 locus, found to confer a protective effect among APOE4 carriers. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Reasons for declining included mis-association with hospice, not seeing additional benefit to current care, and reluctance to change current care. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

This includes adapting and disseminating care delivery innovations from one system to another, as well as measuring and sharing in the improved outcomes and reduced costs that might result. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Detecting Self-Repairs from Spontaneous Speech with Prompt Ablation Across LLMs and Fine-Tuned Encoder

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-25

Self-repairs - in-utterance revisions in which a speaker abandons and reformulates their speech - are a promising interpretable marker for speech-based cognitive screening. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Absorption and Co-expression Modules Show Where Polygenic and Proteomic Risk Scores Diverge in Neurodegenerative Diseases

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-08-27

Polygenic and proteomic risk scores are both proposed for pre-symptomatic stratification, yet the extent to which they provide overlapping or complementary information has not been measured across neurodegenerative disease. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Returning APOE and pTau-217 Results: the eSMARTER Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-01

ImportancePatients are increasingly learning Alzheimers disease (AD) genetic and biomarker results through electronic health portals. 5 key findings →

Participants: 216 Evidence: high

Diagnostic Value of Large Language Model-Extracted Gross Brain Findings in Neurodegenerative Diseases

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-14

Gross brain findings help guide differential diagnosis, but their diagnostic value across major neurodegenerative diseases remains incompletely characterized. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,613 Evidence: low

Association of plasma biomarkers with longitudinal change in age- and Alzheimer's disease-related brain atrophy patterns

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-17

INTRODUCTIONDetermining whether plasma biomarkers are preferentially associated with Alzheimers disease (AD)-related rather than age-related brain atrophy patterns may clarify their prognostic and diagnostic clinical use. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate

Smartphone Passive Digital Phenotyping in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv (preprint) 2026-09-21

IntroductionFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a devastating disease that commonly results in early onset dementia, yet its rarity and heterogeneity limit large-scale research and clinical trials. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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