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 3,051–3,075 of 8,485 studies · tagged Brain Biology (page 123 of 340) · 30,580 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.

Conserved epigenomic signals in mice and humans reveal immune basis of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature 2015-02-01

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a severe age-related neurodegenerative disorder characterized by accumulation of amyloid-β plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, synaptic and neuronal loss, and cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs), composed of truncated and hyperphosphorylated tau, are a common feature of numerous aging-related neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Phosphorylated-tau 217 (pTau217) is currently the most promising blood-based biomarker for accurately detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Evaluating potential therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) depends on use of biomarkers for appropriate subject selection and monitoring disease progression. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We observed a significant CSF Aβ42 /Aβ40 × p-tau interaction on cortical neurite density index (NDI), but not orientation dispersion index or cortical thickness. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

After correction for multiple comparisons, a strong positive association between CSF Abeta42 levels and glucose metabolism was identified for 2 extensive clusters located in the right temporal, prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices. 3 key findings →

Participants: 32 Evidence: low

In women we found a significant correlation between CSF amyloid-beta (Aβ1-42) and several subtests measuring delayed recall. 3 key findings →

Participants: 79 Evidence: low

Earlier studies have shown elevated levels of tau protein and decreased levels of amyloid beta42 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 17 Evidence: low

The APOE-npscore explained more variance and provided a better model fit for all three CSF measures than APOE ε4-carrier status and ε4 allele count. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The two most frequently examined biomarkers in the diagnosis of dementia are cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau and beta-amyloid(1-42) (Abeta(1-42)). 4 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

Tau protein concentrations were measured in the CSF of 23 patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT), 36 patients with multi-infarct dementia (MID), and 23 control subjects. 2 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

APOE2 Exacerbates TDP-43 Related Toxicity in the Absence of Alzheimer Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2023-01-10

We found that TDP-43 overexpression induced motor function deficits, neuronal loss, and gliosis in the motor cortex, especially in APOE2 mice, with much milder or absent effects in APOE3, APOE4, or Apoe-KO mice. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

APOE4 is a strong genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and Dementia with Lewy bodies; however, how its expression impacts pathogenic pathways in a human-relevant system is not clear. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified APOE2 allele as linked to exceptional longevity, with carriers exhibiting a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Genetic variations in MS4A4A and MS4A6A Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) are linked to the regulation of cerebrospinal-fluid-soluble TREM2 levels and are associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk and progression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 8,460 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.

1,037 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    Where this research is being discussed: events