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 126–150 of 672 studies in Drug development · tagged Brain Biology (page 6 of 27) · 31,380 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.

What “Drug development” covers

Drug development — Candidate treatments on their way through the pipeline, from the laboratory to early human trials.

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.

Microglial phagocytosis is a highly energy-consuming process that plays critical roles in clearing neurotoxic amyloid-β (Aβ) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia, and epidemiological studies support that type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major contributor. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Accumulation of misfolded, aggregating proteins concurrent with disease onset and progression is a hallmark of neurodegenerative proteinopathies. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

A large hexanucleotide (G 4 C 2 ) repeat expansion in the first intronic region of C9orf72 is the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The G 4 C 2 repeat expansion in the C9orf72 gene is the most common genetic cause of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Emerging evidence from Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients suggests that reducing tau pathology can restore cognitive and memory loss. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Brain pericytes regulate cerebral blood flow, maintain the integrity of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), and facilitate the removal of amyloid β (Aβ), which is critical to healthy brain activity. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease and other Tauopathies are associated with neurofibrillary tangles composed of Tau protein, as well as toxic Tau oligomers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

When compared to untreated cells, the delivery of Aducanumab-analogue and RNF5 was significantly increased (up to 1.73 fold), across the Transwell-based BBB models following FUS +MB treatment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tau cleavage plays a crucial role in the onset and progression of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), a widespread neurodegenerative disease whose incidence is expected to increase in the next years. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

High-resolution scans of immunohistochemical (IHC) stains of Alzheimer's disease (AD) brain slices and radioligand autoradiography both provide information about the distribution of Aβ plaques and Tau, the two common proteinopathies in AD. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tau protein aggregates are a recognized neuropathological feature in Alzheimer's disease as well as many other neurodegenerative disorders, known as tauopathies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease that causes memory loss, cognitive decline, and eventually dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

We examined the autopsied brains of cases of 6 types of tauopathy: parkinsonism-dementia complex of Guam (PDC), corticobasal degeneration (CBD), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), Pick disease, Alzheimer disease (AD), and myotonic dystrophy together with Guamanian controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by mutations in the TSC1 and TSC2 genes and autosomal dominantly inherited. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Submitted for the study were 116 autopsy brains, from 65 non-demented people, 24 patients with dementia of Alzheimer type (DAT) and 27 patients with vascular dementia, aged between 50 s and 100 s. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded coronal sections of the brains at the level of the lateral geniculate body were immunohistochemically stained with the avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex procedure, using the anti-bodies to tau protein purified from human brains (anti-tau) as the primary antibodies. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: low

Tau tubulin kinase-1 (TTBK1), a neuron-specific tau kinase, is highly expressed in the entorhinal cortex and hippocampal regions, where early tau pathology evolves in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 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
  • Randomized / 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
  • Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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