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 151–175 of 1,381 studies in Disease mechanisms (page 7 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.

Widespread cortical reduction of synaptic density was documented in a cohort of DLB/PDD subjects using in vivo [11C]UCB-J PET. 5 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate

Nutritional supplementation is emerging as a promising strategy to support clinical management of early Alzheimer's disease (AD), partly through modulation of the intestinal microbiome via the microbiota-gut-brain axis. 1 key finding →

Participants: 22 Evidence: low

They remain a significant focus of scientific and clinical interest due to their increasing medical and social importance. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma pTau217 levels serve as a scalable, non-invasive marker of AD-pathology across Lewy body diseases, PSP/CBS, and MCI/CU populations. 2 key findings →

Participants: 18 Evidence: low

Synaptic dysfunction is increasingly recognized as an early and biologically relevant component of α-synucleinopathies. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Ten participants with AD (5 male and 5 female; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [6.3] years; 10 [100%] β-amyloid positive) were compared with 11 participants who were cognitively normal (5 male and 6 female; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [8.7] years; 11 [100%] β-amyloid negative). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Our findings suggest that the proposition that synaptic markers can predict cognitive decline in AD, should be extended to Lewy body diseases. 4 key findings →

Participants: 129 Evidence: low

18F-flortaucipir (AV-1451) tau PET in frontotemporal dementia syndromes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2019-01-31

All patients underwent MRI and β-amyloid biomarker testing via 11 C-PiB or cerebrospinal fluid. 18 F-flortaucipir uptake in patients was compared to 53 β-amyloid negative normal controls using voxelwise and pre-specified region of interest approaches. 5 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

We investigated the incidence and extent of Lewy body (LB)-related alpha-synucleinopathy (LBAS) in the olfactory bulb (OB) in 320 consecutive autopsy patients from a general geriatric hospital (mean age, 81.5 +/- 8.5 years). 1 key finding →

Participants: 102 Evidence: low

Evaluation of early-phase [18F]-florbetaben PET acquisition in clinical routine cases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2016-10-08

Early-phase FBB acquisitions correlate on a relative quantitative and visual level with FDG PET scans, irrespective of the amyloid plaque density assessed in late FBB imaging. 3 key findings →

Participants: 33 Evidence: low

Compared to CN counterparts, patients with MCI have higher proportion of families Sclerotiniaceae, Phaffomyceteceae, Trichocomaceae, Cystofilobasidiaceae, Togniniaceae and genera Botrytis, Kazachstania, Phaeoacremonium and Cladosporium and lower abundance of Meyerozyma. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

CRMP-5 neuronal autoantibody: Marker of lung cancer and thymoma-related autoimmunity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Annals of Neurology 2001-01-01

We have defined a new paraneoplastic immunoglobulin G (IgG) autoantibody specific for CRMP-5, a previously unknown 62-kd neuronal cytoplasmic protein of the collapsin response-mediator family. 2 key findings →

Participants: 121 Evidence: low

Pathological mechanisms and treatment progression of Alzheimer’s disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. European journal of medical research 2025-07-14

Alzheimer's disease (AD) represents the most prevalent neurodegenerative disorder and leading cause of dementia worldwide, with its incidence rising dramatically in aging populations. 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