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 5,776–5,800 of 6,987 studies · tagged Brain Biology (page 232 of 280) · 28,580 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.

In contrast to many years of important research and clinical attention to the pathological effects of alcohol (ethanol) abuse, the past several decades have seen the publication of a number of peer-reviewed studies indicating the beneficial effects of light-moderate, nonbinge consumption of varied alcoholic beverages, as well as experimental demonstrations that moderate alcohol exposure can initiate typically cytoprotective mechanisms. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Glutamate transport is central to neurotransmitter functions in the brain. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Inflammation may play a role in neural damage in preclinical AD. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The brain in Alzheimer's disease (AD) shows a chronic inflammatory response characterized by activated glial cells and increased expression of cytokines and complement factors surrounding amyloid deposits. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Reduced glucose utilization and energy metabolism occur early in the course of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and correlate with impaired cognition. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The cascade of Alzheimer's disease (AD) neurodegeneration is associated with persistent oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired energy metabolism, and activation of pro-death signaling pathways. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Apolipoprotein E (apoE) is found in amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) brains, but its role in their pathogenesis is unclear. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A majority of current disease-modifying therapeutic approaches for age-related neurodegenerative diseases target their characteristic proteopathic lesions (α-synuclein, Tau, Aβ). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The accumulation of aggregated amyloid-β (Aβ) in amyloid plaques is a neuropathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The mechanisms involved in Alzheimer's disease are not completely understood and how glial cells contribute to this neurodegenerative disease remains to be elucidated. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results of the present study confirm in vivo anti-inflammatory actions of CBD, emphasizing the importance of this compound as a novel promising pharmacological tool capable of attenuating Abeta evoked neuroinflammatory responses. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Pathophysiology of hepatic encephalopathy: a new look at ammonia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Metabolic brain disease 2002-12-01

Damage to astrocytes characterized by cell swelling (acute liver failure) or Alzheimer Type II astrocytosis (chronic liver failure) can be readily reproduced by acute or chronic exposure of these cells in vitro to pathophysiologically relevant concentrations of ammonia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD), impaired Aβ removal contributes to elevated extracellular Aβ levels that drive amyloid plaque pathogenesis. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), amyloid plaques are surrounded by reactive astrocytes with an increased expression of intermediate filaments including glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Metallothionein-III (MT-III), a brain-specific member of the metallothionein family of metal-binding proteins, is abundant in glutamatergic neurons that release zinc from their synaptic terminals, such as hippocampal pyramidal neurons and dentate granule cells. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 6,970 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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