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 1–25 of 94 studies in Inflammation and the immune system (page 1 of 4) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 94 studies tagged vessel — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Inflammation and the immune system” covers

Inflammation and the immune system — The brain's immune cells and inflammatory signals, and their role in how Alzheimer's starts and progresses.

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.

The Olink Proteomics panel of inflammation markers ( https://www.olink.com/products/inflammation/ ) will be used to evaluate 92 proteins associated with inflammatory diseases and related biological processes. 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 50 Evidence: high

A single traumatic brain injury is associated with an increased risk of dementia and, in a proportion of patients surviving a year or more from injury, the development of hallmark Alzheimer's disease-like pathologies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate

Many coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive individuals exhibit abnormal electroencephalographic (EEG) activity reflecting "brain fog" and mild cognitive impairments even months after the acute phase of infection. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high

Based on the title and abstracts, 830 papers were screened from which 250 primary research papers met the eligibility criteria (original research articles with patients or with a strict diabetes model without comorbidities, that included direct data about microglia in the brain or retina), and 17 additional research papers were included through forward and backward citations, resulting in a total of 267 primary research articles included in the scoping systematic review. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 267 Evidence: high

Coronavirus disease 2019 and neurodegenerative disease: what will the future bring?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Current opinion in psychiatry 2021-03-01

Further studies are needed to determine whether COVID-19 may lead to an increased risk of developing NDD in susceptible individuals. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high

The pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated dementia is unclear, and the underlying pathological substrate has been a matter of debate. 4 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

Microglia in neurodegenerative disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Nature reviews. Neurology 2010-03-16

Microglia, the resident macrophages of the CNS, are exquisitely sensitive to brain injury and disease, altering their morphology and phenotype to adopt a so-called activated state in response to pathophysiological brain insults. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

There is increasing appreciation that non-neuronal cells contribute to the initiation, progression and pathology of diverse neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dysfunction of immune and vascular systems has been implicated in aging and Alzheimer disease; however, their interrelatedness remains poorly understood. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Increasing evidence from epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies indicate that age-related cerebromicrovascular dysfunction and microcirculatory damage play critical roles in the pathogenesis of many types of dementia in the elderly, including Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Vascular cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) is a major heterogeneous brain disease caused by multiple factors, and it is the second most common type of dementia in the world. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Herbal medicines demonstrate great potential to prevent cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: low

This study has established a panel of highly important DEGs to signify the potential therapeutic targets for neuroregenerative strategy against pathogenic events associated with cerebral stroke. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

In this consecutive autopsy study, the pathological evidence of HIV encephalitis, which included the presence of giant cells and/or HIV p24 immunopositivity, was found more frequently in drug users (25 of 45; 56%) than in homosexual men (6 of 35; 17%) with AIDS (P < 0.01). 1 key finding →

Participants: 18 Evidence: moderate

This review recounts the definitions and research evidence supporting the multifaceted roles of neuroinflammation in the injured brain following trauma. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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