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 226–250 of 448 studies with an author at University of Gothenburg (SE) (page 10 of 18) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 448 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.

Comparing 18F-AV-1451 with CSF t-tau and p-tau for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2018-01-10

CSF tau and 18 F-AV-1451 have equal performance in early clinical stages of AD, but 18 F-AV-1451 is superior in the dementia stage, and exhibits close to perfect diagnostic performance for mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Plasma p-tau212 might have utility for theragnostics, monitoring therapy efficacy, and as a target engagement biomarker in clinical trials both in sporadic and DSAD. 1 key finding →

Participants: 245 Evidence: low

Fluid biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease - current concepts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Molecular neurodegeneration 2013-06-21

The diagnostic guidelines of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have recently been updated to include brain imaging and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, with the aim of increasing the certainty of whether a patient has an ongoing AD neuropathologic process or not. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Bipolar disorder is a psychiatric disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of mania/hypomania and depression. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Two genetic variants in strong linkage disequilibrium (rs9536314 and rs9527025) in the Klotho (KL) gene, encoding a transmembrane protein, implicated in longevity and associated with brain resilience during normal aging, were recently shown to be associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) risk in cognitively normal participants who are APOE ε4 carriers. 4 key findings →

Participants: 5,541 Evidence: low

A possible involvement of the gene IL1RAP (interleukin-1 receptor-associated protein) in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been suggested in GWASs of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau levels and longitudinal change in brain amyloid burden. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,446 Evidence: moderate

Cerebrospinal fluid tau and amyloid-β1-42 in patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2015-06-30

Progressive cognitive decline in combination with a cerebrospinal fluid biomarker pattern of low levels of amyloid-β1-42 and high levels of total tau and phosphorylated tau is typical of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Cognitive Decline and Dementia in Chronic Widespread Pain: A Longitudinal Population-based Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Anesthesiology 2025-08-25

This study analyzed 13 yr of follow-up data from 188,594 participants to assess the relationship between CWP and cognitive outcomes, while exploring the mediating effects of brain structure and systemic inflammation. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 500,000 Evidence: moderate

Our results suggest that reactive astrogliosis, as indicated by different fluid biomarkers, influences the pathogenic cascade during the preclinical stage of AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neurodegeneration, synaptic dysfunction, and gliosis are phenotypic of Alzheimer dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2018-06-29

These results provide evidence that, in the absence of significant neurodegenerative processes, individuals who harbor AD neuropathology may remain cognitively unimpaired. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 79 Evidence: low

CSF biomarkers predict a more malignant outcome in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2010-05-01

A subgroup of patients with Alzheimer disease with extreme levels of CSF biomarkers exhibits worse clinical outcomes over time, including faster progression of cognitive deficits, no response to ChEI treatment, and a higher mortality. 1 key finding →

Participants: 151 Evidence: low

Myo-inositol changes precede amyloid pathology and relate to APOE genotype in Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Neurology 2016-04-15

Amyloid-positive cognitively healthy participants showed a significant increase in mI/creatine and mI/NAA levels compared to amyloid-negative healthy elderly (p Conclusions mI levels are elevated already at asymptomatic stages of AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Vascular cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Nature reviews. Disease primers 2018-02-15

The term vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) was introduced around the start of the new millennium and refers to the contribution of vascular pathology to any severity of cognitive impairment, ranging from subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Diagnostic criteria for vascular cognitive disorders: a VASCOG statement

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2014-07-01

The proposed criteria for VCD provide a coherent approach to the diagnosis of this diverse group of disorders, with a view to stimulating clinical and pathologic validation studies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Several potential disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have failed to show any effect on disease progression in clinical trials, conceivably because the AD subjects are already too advanced to derive clinical benefit from treatment and because diagnosis based on clinical criteria alone introduces a high misdiagnosis rate. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Age-related white matter changes (ARWMC) on brain MRI have been associated with cognitive, motor, mood and urinary disturbances. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

As the leading cause of dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major burden on affected individuals, their families and caregivers, and healthcare systems. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Almost all individuals with Down Syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer's disease (AD) by mid to late life. 3 key findings →

Participants: 229 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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    Where this research is being discussed: events