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 63 studies in Disease mechanisms published 2022 (page 2 of 3) · 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.

The gut-brain axis describes a bidirectional interplay within the enteric environment between the intestinal epithelium, the mucosal immune system, and the microbiota with the enteric nervous system. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Microbiota-gut-brain axis in the Alzheimer's disease pathology - an overview

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neuroscience research 2022-05-14

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) are still a serious global public health concern more than a century after the German neuropathologist and psychiatrist Dr. Aloysius Alzheimer described the first case. 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: low

Diet Patterns, the Gut Microbiome, and Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2022

Given the complex bidirectional communication system that exists between the gut microbiome and the brain, there is growing interest in the gut microbiome as a novel and potentially modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common neurodegenerative disorder, is accompanied by cognitive impairment and shows representative pathological features, including senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the brain. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Role of Aβ in Alzheimer's-related synaptic dysfunction

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology 2022-08-26

Synaptic dysfunction is closely related to Alzheimer's disease (AD) which is also recognized as synaptic disorder. β-amyloid (Aβ) is one of the main pathogenic factors in AD, which disrupts synaptic plasticity and mediates the synaptic toxicity through different mechanisms. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

CaMKIIβ knockdown decreases store-operated calcium entry in hippocampal dendritic spines

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. IBRO neuroscience reports 2022-01-10

Calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII) and neuronal store-operated calcium entry (nSOCE) have been implicated in the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). nSOCE is involved in regulation of dendritic spine shape, particularly in stability of mushroom spines that play role in formation of strong synapses. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

TCM could modulate signal pathways related to AD pathological progression, including NF-κB, Nrf2, JAK/STAT, ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, autophagy-lysosome pathway-related AMPK/mTOR, GSK-3/mTOR, and PI3K/Akt/mTOR, as well as SIRT1 and PPARα pathway. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Aluminum neurotoxicity and autophagy: a mechanistic view

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neurological research 2022-10-08

It is strongly believed that aluminum is one of the insalubrious agents because of its neurotoxicity effects and influences on amyloid β (Aβ) production and tau protein hyperphosphorylation following oxidative stress, as one of the initial events in neurotoxicity. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Regarding the epidemiological studies, neurological dysfunctions caused by cerebral ischemia or neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) have been considered a pointed matter. 5 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