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 46 studies in Laboratory science (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Laboratory science” covers

Laboratory science — Work on what goes wrong inside the brain, usually in cells or animals. Important, but years from the clinic.

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.

An unresolved question for the understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology is why a significant percentage of amyloid-β (Aβ)-positive cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals do not develop detectable downstream tau pathology and, consequently, clinical deterioration. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,016 Evidence: moderate

The glymphatic system clears amyloid beta and tau from brain to plasma in humans

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Nature Communications 2026

In two randomized crossover studies involving 48 healthy, cognitively normal adults (registered on ClinicalTrials.gov), researchers measured brain and blood markers after normal sleep versus sleep deprivation. 4 key findings →

Design: RCT Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate

The TREM2 agonistic antibody AL002 in early Alzheimer's disease: a phase 2 randomized trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Nature Medicine 2026-03-05

Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) regulates microglial function and is implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. 2 key findings →

Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 381 Evidence: null result

Glymphatic failure may precede amyloid pathology, and predicts amyloid deposition, neurodegeneration, and clinical progression in AD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 419 Evidence: moderate

Identifying concomitant Lewy body (LB) pathology through seed amplification assays (SAA) might enhance the diagnostic and prognostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical practice and trials. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 795 Evidence: moderate

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), amyloid-β (Aβ) triggers the aggregation and spreading of tau pathology, which drives neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 609 Evidence: moderate

This study showed that a simple blood test measuring neurofilament light (NfL), a protein released when brain cells are damaged, can detect the earliest signs of brain degeneration in people carrying genes that cause early-onset familial Alzheimer's disease - years before any symptoms appear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 405 Evidence: high

Microglia modulate Aβ-dependent astrocyte reactivity in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Nature Neuroscience 2025-11-06

Experimental evidence suggests that activated microglia induce astrocyte reactivity in neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 352 Evidence: moderate

Tau accumulation and its spatial progression across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Brain Communications 2024-02-07

This study tracked tau PET scans over time in over 800 people across the Alzheimer's spectrum and found that while tau broadly follows the classic 'Braak stage' spreading pattern, the exact regions affected vary a lot from person to person, especially as disease progresses. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 832 Evidence: moderate

Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy in the oldest old: a population-based study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Brain 2025-01-07

Previous studies have shown that limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC) increases with age, but there have been only a few studies, which have investigated this entity in a population-based setting. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 295 Evidence: moderate

Correlative Memory Deficits, Aβ Elevation, and Amyloid Plaques in Transgenic Mice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Science 1996-10-04

Transgenic mice overexpressing the 695-amino acid isoform of human Alzheimer beta-amyloid (Abeta) precursor protein containing a Lys670 --> Asn, Met671 --> Leu mutation had normal learning and memory in spatial reference and alternation tasks at 3 months of age but showed impairment by 9 to 10 months of age. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

A simple blood test for GFAP, a protein released by activated star-shaped brain support cells called astrocytes, could identify which patients with mild memory problems had underlying Alzheimer's pathology and predict, years in advance, who would go on to develop Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 160 Evidence: moderate

Tau neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in the presence of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques are required for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and closely track with cognitive impairment, yet cognitively normal aged individuals frequently exhibit NFTs arising from tau seed accumulation. 3 key findings →

Design: case-control Participants: 38 Evidence: early

ApoE4 lowers the ptau217 threshold for tau aggregation and spread in an allele dose-dependent manner

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Brain 2026-06-03

We found that ApoE4 did not facilitate amyloid-PET-associated ptau increases, suggesting that amyloid-related ptau secretion is not altered by ApoE4 carriage. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 401 Evidence: moderate

Plasma GFAP and pTau biomarkers (pTau181, pTau231, pTau217) are significantly elevated in Aβ-positive individuals, with stronger Aβ–pTau associations observed in APOE ε4 carriers (CPAS: β = 0.26, p = 0.003 for pTau231; ADNI: β = 0.45, p < 0.001 for pTau181). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 806 Evidence: moderate

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

↑ 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