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 101–125 of 179 studies with an author at University of Edinburgh (GB) (page 5 of 8) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 179 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.

Cognitive function, dementia and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nature reviews. Endocrinology 2011-02-01

Increasing numbers of people are developing type 2 diabetes mellitus, but interventions to prevent and treat the classic microvascular and macrovascular complications have improved, so that people are living longer with the condition. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

In linear mixed models, vascular endothelial growth factor was significantly associated with incident DWI-positive lesions over 1 year. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate

Florbetaben PET imaging to detect amyloid beta plaques in Alzheimer's disease: Phase 3 study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2015-03-27

Florbetaben PET shows high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of histopathology-confirmed neuritic β-amyloid plaques and may thus be a valuable adjunct to clinical diagnosis, particularly for the exclusion of AD.

Increased awareness of cognitive and behavioural change in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has been driven by various clinic-based and population-based studies. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

FDG-PET was performed on a cohort of 79 patients with newly diagnosed PD (mean disease duration 8 months) and 20 unrelated controls. 4 key findings →

Participants: 79 Evidence: moderate

Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a leading cause of stroke and dementia with no specific treatment, of which molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →

Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low

Healthcare costs are already elevated in early subjective and objective cognitive impairment, driven by formal and informal care. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Glial proliferation and activation are associated with disease progression in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal lobar dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The apolipoprotein E (APOE)ε4 allele is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset AD and is associated with aberrant cerebrospinal fluid levels (CSF) of total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau (p-tau), and amyloid-β (Aβ). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are among the most common radiological abnormalities in the ageing population and an established risk factor for stroke and dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Microglia protein profiles in CSF across Alzheimer’s disease clinical stages

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Nature Aging 2026-03-11

Microglia are implicated in the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology from its earliest stages, suggesting that cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) microglia profiling across clinical AD stages can aid in treatment development and monitoring. 3 key findings →

Participants: 834 Evidence: low

Early and accurate detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is essential for timely intervention and development of disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Though results of pivotal studies in early (prodromal/mild) Alzheimer's disease are awaited, results to date in more established (mild to moderate) Alzheimer's disease have been equivocal and no disease modifying agents are either licensed or can be currently recommended for clinical use. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

↑ 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