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 2,701–2,725 of 8,338 studies · tagged Brain Biology (page 109 of 334) · 30,180 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.

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.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are neurodegenerative diseases with overlap in clinical presentation, neuropathology, and genetic underpinnings. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Of the 944 clinical cases, 13.0% were characterized as probable LATE (2.4% pure LATE and 10.6% LATE+AD) and 23.7% were characterized as probable AD without LATE. 5 key findings →

Participants: 944 Evidence: low

We analyzed data from 1,542 participants (mean age = 72.2 years, SD = 7.2; 50.8% female; mean education = 16.3 years, SD = 2.6) and found that APOE4 was associated with steeper declines in episodic memory as a function of Aβ duration. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,542 Evidence: low

In a heterogeneous autopsy sample, AD and LB pathology both contribute to cholinergic basal forebrain degeneration whereas hippocampus atrophy is more specifically related to AD pathology. 4 key findings →

Participants: 248 Evidence: low

Glymphatic activity in bvFTD correlated strongly with vascular dysfunction and astrocytic activation, and was associated with brain changes and clinical severity. 5 key findings →

Participants: 61 Evidence: low

Among 635 AD patients without LB, 62 (9.7%) presented parkinsonism, which correlated with reduced nigral neuron density (p < 0.01). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

GBA is the major risk gene for Parkinson’s disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), two common α-synucleinopathies with cognitive deficits. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The human brain is one of the most metabolically active tissues in the body, due in large part to the activity of trillions of synaptic connections. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Serum beta-synuclein level was progressively increased in the AD continuum across the preclinical, MCI and dementia stages compared with controls and was correlated with serum pTau181 (r=0.710), NfL (r=0.494) and GFAP concentrations (r=0.621, p<0.001 for all). 5 key findings →

Participants: 56 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease marked by the accumulation of extracellular β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles containing tau protein. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major public health concern in societies with increasingly ageing populations. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Multi-functional role of apolipoprotein E in neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 2025-01-29

Genetic diversity in the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene has been identified as the major susceptibility genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (SAD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Relative to cybrids expressing mtDNA from CH individuals, MCI and AD cybrids contained more phosphorylated tau-217 (p-tau217), p-tau181, and total tau. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

As expected, males had higher lean mass and VO2peak than females (p = 0.01), but groups did not differ in body mass index (p = 0.51). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 8,313 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.

1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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