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 1,380 studies in Disease mechanisms (page 2 of 56) · 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 “Disease mechanisms” covers

Disease mechanisms — Cell- and molecule-level research into what actually goes wrong in Alzheimer's and related diseases.

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.

In this study, clinically normal adults with SNAP did not exhibit evidence of elevated tau levels, which suggests that this biomarker construct does not represent amyloid-independent tauopathy. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 247 Evidence: moderate

Oral benfotiamine is safe and potentially efficacious in improving cognitive outcomes among persons with MCI and mild AD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low

Cerebrospinal fluid neurogranin was increased in patients with Alzheimer's disease dementia (P < 0.001), progressive mild cognitive impairment (P < 0.001) and stable mild cognitive impairment (P < 0.05) compared with controls, and in Alzheimer's disease dementia (P < 0.01) and progressive mild cognitive impairment (P < 0.05) compared with stable mild cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 95 Evidence: moderate

Assessment of 18F-PI-2620 as a Biomarker in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2020-11-01

Of 60 patients with PSP, 40 (66.7%) had RS (22 men [55.0%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [6] years; mean [SD] PSP rating scale score, 38 [15]; score range, 13-71) and 20 (33.3%) had PSP-non-RS (11 men [55.0%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [9] years; mean [SD] PSP rating scale score, 24 [11]; score range, 11-41). 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: low

Choroid plexus free‐water correlates with glymphatic function in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-05-01

At baseline, Aβ+ participants showed higher CP FWf, increased white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, and decreased diffusion tensor image analysis along the perivascular space (DTI-ALPS). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 216 Evidence: moderate

The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease at 25 years

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. EMBO Molecular Medicine 2016-03-29

Despite continuing debate about the amyloid β-protein (or Aβ hypothesis, new lines of evidence from laboratories and clinics worldwide support the concept that an imbalance between production and clearance of Aβ42 and related Aβ peptides is a very early, often initiating factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Brain regions with higher synaptic density are associated with a higher 18F-AV-1451 binding in progressive supranuclear palsy/corticobasal degeneration, but this association diminishes with disease severity. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia worldwide, imposes a growing clinical and societal burden, yet no therapies have been proven to alter its progression despite decades of intensive research. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Nature Reviews Disease Primers 2021-05-13

This Primer conceptualizes Alzheimer disease (AD) as a genetic and sporadic neurodegenerative disorder driven by a complex interplay between loss of synaptic homeostasis and endosomal/lysosomal clearance pathway dysfunction, in which Aβ and tau products play key roles. 4 key findings →

Using Fisher's exact test, there was significant association of both ABI3_rs616338-T (OR = 1.41, p = 0.044) and PLCG2_rs72824905-G (OR = 0.56, p = 0.008) with AD. 5 key findings →

Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate

Aerobic glycolysis and tau deposition in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2018-03-20

Research of the human brain metabolism in vivo has largely focused on total glucose use (via fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography) and, until recently, did not examine the use of glucose outside oxidative phosphorylation, which is known as aerobic glycolysis (AG). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 42 Evidence: moderate

↑ 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