alzhub.org
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.

Research

27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–11 of 11 studies with an author at Nantes Université (FR) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 12,859 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Virtual navigation tested on a mobile app is predictive of real-world wayfinding navigation performance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. PloS one 2019-03-18

Virtual reality environments presented on tablets and smartphones have potential to aid the early diagnosis of conditions such as Alzheimer's dementia by quantifying impairments in navigation performance. 2 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

High frequency of potentially pathogenic SORL1 mutations in autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Molecular psychiatry 2012-04-03

Performing exome sequencing in 14 autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer disease (ADEOAD) index cases without mutation on known genes (amyloid precursor protein (APP), presenilin1 (PSEN1) and presenilin2 (PSEN2)), we found that in five patients, the SORL1 gene harbored unknown nonsense (n=1) or missense (n=4) mutations. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Contribution to Alzheimer's disease risk of rare variants in TREM2, SORL1, and ABCA7 in 1779 cases and 1273 controls

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2017-07-14

We performed whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing in 927 late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) cases, 852 early-onset AD (EOAD) cases, and 1273 controls from France. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The short-chain fatty acid butyrate prevents gut-brain amyloid-β pathology and neuroinflammation in an Alzheimer mouse model

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Molecular Psychiatry 2026-03-05

Collectively, these findings suggest that Aβ promotes gut symptoms through alteration of ENS connectivity and butyrate counteracts these impairments with an amelioration of neuroinflammation and memory function in AD model. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The French series of autosomal dominant early onset Alzheimer's disease cases: mutation spectrum and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2012-01-01

We describe 56 novel autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer disease (ADEOAD) families with PSEN1, PSEN2, and AβPP mutations or duplications, raising the total of families with mutations on known genes to 111 (74 PSEN1, 8 PSEN2, 16 AβPP, and 13 AβPP duplications) in the French series. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Cuing Prospective Memory With Smartphone-Based Calendars in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists 2020-08-09

We investigated the effect of using smartphone-based calendars (Google and Outlook Calendar) on prospective memory in Alzheimer's disease (AD). we recruited two groups of participants with mild AD. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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