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 3,951–3,975 of 8,227 studies · tagged Brain Biology (page 159 of 330) · 29,780 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.

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are used extensively for analysis of mechanisms underlying human diseases and metabolic malfunctions. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In recent years, biomarkers have been integrated into the diagnostic process and have become increasingly indispensable for obtaining knowledge of the neurodegenerative processes in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuropathology and emerging biomarkers in corticobasal syndrome

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 2022-06-13

Corticobasal syndrome (CBS) is a clinical syndrome characterised by progressive asymmetric limb rigidity and apraxia with dystonia, myoclonus, cortical sensory loss and alien limb phenomenon. 3 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

This Alzheimer's Association workgroup paper proposes a major update to how Alzheimer's disease is diagnosed: it defines the disease by biological markers (amyloid plaques and tau tangles detected via blood, CSF, or PET) rather than requiring clinical symptoms like memory loss to be present. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer's & Dementia 2018-04

This influential 2018 paper proposed defining Alzheimer's disease by what is happening biologically in the brain (amyloid plaques, tau tangles, and neuron loss, measured by scans or spinal fluid tests) instead of by memory symptoms alone. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Human genetic and animal model studies indicate that brain microglial inflammation is a primary driver of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer Disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The concentration of 124 I-RmAb158-scFv8D3, as measured in vivo with PET, increased with age and corresponded well with the ex vivo autoradiography and Aβ immunohistochemistry results. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

The hTau40(AT) mice mimic pathological hallmarks of tauopathies including a cognitive phenotype combined with pronounced neuroinflammation visible by bioluminescence. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our data suggest that FXN ameliorates AD pathology, by simultaneously targeting two key pathological features: Aβ deposits and neuroinflammation. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Systemic inflammation, infection, ApoE alleles, and Alzheimer disease: a position paper

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Current Alzheimer research 2007-04-01

Alzheimer disease (AD) includes inflammatory processes in the senile plaques and surrounding glia, with increased expression of acute phase proteins such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and IL-6. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Overexpression of Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein (APP) produces dramatically different phenotypes in transgenic mice depending on the genetic background. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Two major risk factors for late-onset familial and sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD), a leading cause of dementia worldwide, are increasing age and inheritance of the epsilon4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene (APOE4). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We compared lesions in elderly transgenic (tg) mice carrying the Swedish double mutation KM670/671NL with lesions in Alzheimer disease (AD) by histochemical and immunohistochemical techniques. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The very low density lipoprotein receptor (VLDL-r) is a cell-surface molecule specialized for the internalization of multiple diverse ligands, including apolipoprotein E (apoE)-containing lipoprotein particles, via clathrin-coated pits. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The incidence of dementia and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) increases with age. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 8,203 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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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 (3.5% 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