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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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.
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 626–650 of 6,987 studies · tagged Brain Biology(page 26 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)
From OpenAlex; 14,058 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common form of neurodegenerative disease, estimated to contribute 60-70% of all cases of dementia worldwide. 4 key findings →
During an average follow-up period of 14.5 years, a total of 9520 (81.1%) participants had used NSAIDs at any given time, and 2091 participants developed dementia. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·A&A Practice·2026-05-01
UNDERLYING BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS PNDs result from a complex interplay of multiple biological, genetic, and environmental factors (Table 1). 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology·2026-04-16
< 0.01). Using an operationalization of clinical criteria for LATE, 8.2% of participants with MCI or dementia from our tertiary memory clinic were classified as Possible-LATE, Probable-LATE, or LATE-AD. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Annals of Neurology·2025-01-09
Analyses revealed significant nonlinear interaction effects of ELS severity and age on NfL and GFAP serum concentrations, total and subcortical gray matter volume loss, increased third ventricular volume, and cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Annals of Neurology·1999-03-01
The distribution and density of neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaques was studied in a unique series of cases whose premortem cognitive status had been assessed with the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), including 39 nondemented cases (CDR = 0; age, 51-88 years), 15 very mildly demented cases (CDR = 0.5), and 8 severely demented (CDR = 3) cases. 5 key findings →
Mutations in the genes for amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilins (PS1, PS2) increase production of beta-amyloid 42 (Abeta42) and cause familial Alzheimer's disease (FAD). 1 key finding →
This study highlighted that the AD-causal MD genes could be regulated by epigenetic changes and interact with inflammatory cytokines, providing evidence for AD prevention and intervention. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Science·2001-08-24
JNPL3 transgenic mice expressing a mutant tau protein, which develop neurofibrillary tangles and progressive motor disturbance, were crossed with Tg2576 transgenic mice expressing mutant beta-amyloid precursor protein (APP), thus modulating the APP-Abeta (beta-amyloid peptide) environment.
Early microglial accumulation in Alzheimer's disease (AD) delays disease progression by promoting clearance of beta-amyloid (Abeta) before formation of senile plaques.
The pathology-based classification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases is a work in progress that is important for both clinicians and basic scientists. 1 key finding →
Abnormal forms of prion protein that were found in multiple peripheral tissues were associated with diarrhea, autonomic failure, and neuropathy. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Neurology and therapy·2019-12-12
Currently established and employed biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) predominantly mirror AD-associated molecular and structural brain changes. 1 key finding →
Mediterranean diets may be neuroprotective and prevent cognitive decline relative to Western diets; however, the underlying biology is poorly understood. 5 key findings →
Biological changes activated by stress represent a significant factor influencing brain structure and function in first-episode psychosis through an effect on BDNF. 4 key findings →
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.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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.