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 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)

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.

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 →

Participants: 11,745 Evidence: high

< 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 →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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 →

Participants: 179 Evidence: low

Proteins Involved in Endothelial Function and Inflammation Are Implicated in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Stroke 2025-01-17

). Moreover, 12 proteins related to endothelial function and inflammation were associated with neuroimaging features of SVD. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate

Tangles and plaques in nondemented aging and ?preclinical? Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Evidence: low

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 →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Collectively, plasma biomarker findings in the low p-tau217 subgroup were more robust than in the mITT population. 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: high

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative dementia with multi-layered complexity in its molecular etiology. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Enhanced Neurofibrillary Degeneration in Transgenic Mice Expressing Mutant Tau and APP

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub 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.

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 →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Mediterranean diets may be neuroprotective and prevent cognitive decline relative to Western diets; however, the underlying biology is poorly understood. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: case-control study Participants: 19 Evidence: moderate

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