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 401–425 of 448 studies with an author at University of Gothenburg (SE) (page 17 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.

We demonstrated a moderate positive correlation between PDGFRβ and both total Tau and phosphorylated Tau 181 in cognitively normal individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has emerged as a promising biomarker of astrocytic reactivity in preclinical Alzheimer´s Disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 143 Evidence: low

Major membrane lipids were quantified in frontal (Brodmann area 9) and temporal (Brodmann areas 21 and 22) cortices, caudate nucleus, hippocampus, and frontal white matter of 12 cases with Alzheimer's disease (AD) type I (early onset), 21 cases with AD type II (late onset), and 20 age-matched controls. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

= 0.71) longitudinally. YKL-40 associations with FW and FW-corrected fractional anisotropy were null. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Plasma ptau217 has strong diagnostic performance in distinguishing CSF biomarker-defined AD in a clinically relevant, younger cohort of people with symptoms, adding further weight for a simple diagnostic blood test for AD as a cause of a patient's symptoms. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

While people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) portray noticeably incipient memory difficulty in remembering events and situations along with problems in decision making, planning, and finding their way in familiar environments, detailed neuropsychological assessments also indicate deficits in language performance. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Human stem cell models have the potential to provide platforms for phenotypic screens to identify candidate treatments and cellular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A population of >6 million people worldwide at high risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are those with Down Syndrome (DS, caused by trisomy 21 (T21)), 70% of whom develop dementia during lifetime, caused by an extra copy of β-amyloid-(Aβ)-precursor-protein gene. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

This observational study included 290 cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants with a family history (FH) of clinically diagnosed sporadic AD (age 49-73 years) from the Alzheimer's and Families (ALFA) study. [ 18 F]flutemetamol-PET standardized uptake value ratios, CSF β-amyloid 42/40 ratio, and phosphorylated tau were used as AD biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Participants: 290 Evidence: low

Individual cognitive profiles of patients with Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) are highly heterogeneous, suggesting possible biological subtypes. 1 key finding →

Participants: 50 Evidence: low

Glial fibrillary acidic protein in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Dementia (Basel, Switzerland) 1996-09-01

Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is the structural protein of the astroglial intermediate filament that forms the morphological basis of astrogliosis. 2 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

We conclude that an inverse correlation between levels of inflammation in cortical areas and plasma NfL levels indicates that microglial activation may initially be protective to axons in AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Numerous studies have shown a marked decrease of beta-amyloid(42) (Abeta(42)) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with incipient Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is regarded as the prodromal stage of dementia disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Participants: 73 Evidence: low

Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with education, health behaviors and mortality. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,479 Evidence: moderate

We found 5 distinct clusters of subjects (N=38, N=16, N=24, N=14, N=21) with a composition statistically independent from that obtained using available clinical diagnostic criteria (each cluster included all phenotypical groups). 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive assessment and analysis of plasma biomarkers are lower-cost options for the early assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Participants: 327 Evidence: low

Individual biomarkers significantly predict decline across multiple cognitive domains. 5 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 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