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 26–50 of 230 studies (page 2 of 10) · 29,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 230 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 230 studies tagged neurovascular — clear

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.

This editorial summarizes advances from the Clearance of Interstitial Fluid and Cerebrospinal Fluid (CLIC) group, within the Vascular Professional Interest Area (PIA) of the Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a small vessel disease characterized by the deposition of amyloid-beta in small cerebral vessels, which can lead to intracerebral hemorrhages and cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Blood-brain barrier breakdown is an early biomarker of human cognitive dysfunction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Nature medicine 2019-01-14

Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment are increasingly recognized 1-5 as shown by neuropathological 6,7 , neuroimaging 4,8-11 , and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker 4,12 studies. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The 88 patients with AD included 15 with microbleeds only in cortical/subcortical regions (cortical microbleeds) that could be CAA-related, 16 with microbleeds only in deep locations (deep microbleeds), 3 with microbleeds in both cortical and deep locations (mixed microbleeds), and 54 without microbleeds. 4 key findings →

Participants: 88 Evidence: low

AD mice showed early decreases in NVC and bilateral connectivity (BC) in motor and cingulate cortex, and hypoconnectivity within the sensory-motor network. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is widely recognized as a multifactorial disorder involving neurovascular and glial dysfunction beyond amyloid-β and tau pathology. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

A human brain vascular atlas reveals diverse mediators of Alzheimer's risk

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Nature 2022-02-14

The human brain vasculature is of great medical importance: its dysfunction causes disability and death 1 , and the specialized structure it forms-the blood-brain barrier-impedes the treatment of nearly all brain disorders 2,3 . 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our study has established a significant link between CAA-Aβ antibody immune complex formation, immune activation and vascular damage leading to smooth muscle cell loss. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy: Clinical Presentation, Sequelae and Neuroimaging Features-An Update

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Biomedicines 2025-03-01

The prevalence of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) has been shown to increase with age, with rates reported to be around 50-60% in individuals over 80 years old who have cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Functional morphology of the blood-brain barrier in health and disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Acta neuropathologica 2018-02-06

The adult quiescent blood-brain barrier (BBB), a structure organised by endothelial cells through interactions with pericytes, astrocytes, neurons and microglia in the neurovascular unit, is highly regulated but fragile at the same time. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease, cerebrovascular disease and dementia: lump, split or integrate?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Brain : a journal of neurology 2022-08-27

This scientific commentary refers to ‘Cerebral amyloid angiopathy interacts with neuritic amyloid plaques to promote tau and cognitive decline’ by Rabin et al. (https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac178). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

BBBO was achieved in 5 out of 6 subjects with an average volume of 983±626 mm 3 following FUS at the right frontal lobe both in white and gray matter regions. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) protects the brain but is also an important obstacle for the effective delivery of therapeutics in Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

From across this tag

10 of the 230 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 29,380 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 29,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.3% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.3%), 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