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 826–850 of 1,381 studies in Disease mechanisms (page 34 of 56) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

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.

Mitophagy in neurodegenerative diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Neurochemistry international 2017-08-08

Neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's disease (PD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), Huntington's disease (HD), and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), are a complex "family" of pathologies, characterised by the progressive loss of neurons and/or neuronal functions, leading to severe physical and cognitive inabilities in affected patients. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The Ubiquitin System in Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Advances in experimental medicine and biology 2020

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia, most prevalent in the elderly population and has a significant impact on individuals and their family as well as the health care system and the economy. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Glia-specific autophagy dysfunction in ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Seminars in cell & developmental biology 2019-05-28

Neuronal cell death is the main pathological feature of chronic neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Proteolytic processing of amyloid precursor protein (APP) C-terminal fragments (CTFs) by γ-secretase underlies the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Imbalance of neuronal proteostasis associated with misfolding and aggregation of Tau protein is a common neurodegenerative feature in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other Tauopathies. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Protein homeostasis or proteostasis is an essential balance of cellular protein levels mediated through an extensive network of biochemical pathways that regulate different steps of the protein quality control, from the synthesis to the degradation. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Tauopathies such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), Pick's disease (PiD), Frontotemporal dementia with parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17) etc. represent a group of age-related neurodegenerative disorders in which tau protein loses its normal conformation mostly due to hyperphosphorylation and subsequent formation of the aggregates of defined shapes, known as Neurofibrillary Tangles (NFTs). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Several lines of evidence have shown that defects in the endo-lysosomal autophagy degradation pathway and the ubiquitin-proteasome system play a role in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) pathogenesis and pathophysiology. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

The Autophagy-Lysosomal Pathways and Their Emerging Roles in Modulating Proteostasis in Tumors

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Cells 2018-12-20

In normal physiological condition, the maintenance of cellular proteostasis is a prerequisite for cell growth, functioning, adapting to changing micro-environments, and responding to extracellular stress. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mitochondria in Alzheimer's disease and their potential role in Alzheimer's proteostasis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 39 out of 100. Experimental neurology 2020-04-25

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive brain disorder characterized by memory loss and the accumulation of two insoluble protein aggregates, tau neurofibrillary tangles and beta-amyloid plaques. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.

1,034 records (3.7% 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