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 4,276–4,300 of 8,227 studies · tagged Brain Biology (page 172 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.

Tauopathies are the most common type of neurodegenerative proteinopathy, being characterized by cytoplasmic aggregates of hyperphosphorylated tau protein. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

HIV Neuroinfection and Alzheimer's Disease: Similarities and Potential Links?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience 2018-09-11

Environmental factors such as chemicals, stress and pathogens are now widely believed to play important roles in the onset of some brain diseases, as they are associated with neuronal impairment and acute or chronic inflammation. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The Role of Selected Bioactive Compounds in the Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) 2020-03-11

Neurodegeneration is a feature of many debilitating, incurable age-dependent diseases that affect the nervous system and represent a major threat to the health of elderly persons. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Neuroinflammation is a common feature shared by neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson's disease (PD), and seems to play a key role in their development and progression. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

These results are especially relevant when compared to previous SSD studies showing effects in behavior only after a demanding cognitive training. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our in vivo model of c9FTD/ALS is the first to robustly recapitulate hallmark features derived from both sense and antisense C9orf72 repeat-associated transcripts complete with neurodegeneration and behavioral impairments. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

A standardized assessment battery that captures shared characteristics of mobility and cognition seen in aging and neurodegeneration may increase comparability across research studies, detection of subtle or common reversible factors, and accelerate research progress in dementia, falls, and aging-related disabilities. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Future experiments and validation studies Future research should determine the extent to which prevention of surgery-induced microgliosis and/or neurovascular unit dysfunction can prevent or ameliorate postoperative memory and attention deficits in animal models. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

In vivo exploration of activated microglia in neurodegenerative diseases is achievable by Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging, using dedicated radiopharmaceuticals targeting the translocator protein-18 kDa (TSPO). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Oxidative stress (OS) plays a critical role in the pathophysiology of several brain-related disorders, including neurodegenerative diseases and ischemic stroke, which are the major causes of dementia. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

These findings indicate that galantamine could be a promising treatment to improve endotoxin-induced cognitive decline and neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Principle component analyses identified 3 factors: trophic (BDNF, VEGF, TGFβ), degenerative (GFAP, NfL), and inflammatory (TNFα, IL-6, IP-10, IL-10). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD), a progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by impairments of cognitive function as a result of synaptic deficits and neuronal loss, is associated with inflammation. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the aggregation of β-amyloid peptides (Aβ) into amyloid plaques in patient brain. 2 key findings →

Participants: 138 Evidence: low

Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (BFCNs) are believed to be one of the first cell types to be affected in all forms of AD, and their dysfunction is clinically correlated with impaired short-term memory formation and retrieval. 1 key finding →

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