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 1–21 of 21 studies in Brain tissue and pathology published 2011 · 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 “Brain tissue and pathology” covers

Brain tissue and pathology — What is found in the brain itself, usually after death: plaques, tangles and other changes, and how they match symptoms in life.

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.

Relating clinical symptoms to neuroanatomical profiles of brain damage and ultimately to tissue pathology is a key challenge in the field of neurodegenerative disease and particularly relevant to the heterogeneous disorders that comprise the frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum. 4 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Annals of neurology 2011-12-01

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) results from deposition of β-amyloid in the media and adventitia of small arteries and capillaries of the leptomeninges and cerebral cortex and is a major cause of lobar intracerebral hemorrhage and cognitive impairment in the elderly. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

We examined the association of social activity with cognitive decline in 1138 persons without dementia at baseline with a mean age of 79.6 (SD = 7.5) who were followed for up to 12 years (mean = 5.2; SD = 2.8). 4 key findings →

Participants: 1,138 Evidence: low

Two thousand three hundred and thirty two nonselected brains from 1- to 100-year-old individuals were examined using immunocytochemistry (AT8) and Gallyas silver staining for abnormal tau; immunocytochemistry (4G8) and Campbell-Switzer staining were used for the detection ofβ-amyloid.

The seeds of neurodegeneration: prion-like spreading in ALS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Cell 2011-10-01

Misfolded proteins accumulating in several neurodegenerative diseases (including Alzheimer, Parkinson, and Huntington diseases) can cause aggregation of their native counterparts through a mechanism similar to the infectious prion protein's induction of a pathogenic conformation onto its cellular isoform. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

To identify rare causal variants in late-onset Parkinson disease (PD), we investigated an Austrian family with 16 affected individuals by exome sequencing. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

It is established that chronic spirochetal infection can cause slowly progressive dementia, brain atrophy and amyloid deposition in late neurosyphilis. 4 key findings →

Participants: 247 Evidence: low

FTD and ALS: a tale of two diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Current Alzheimer research 2011-05-01

The first reports of disorders that in terms of cognitive and behavioral symptoms resemble frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and in terms of motor symptoms resemble amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) bring us back to the second half of the 1800s. Over the last 150 years, and especially in the last two decades, there has been growing evidence that FTD signs can be seen in patients primarily diagnosed with ALS, implying clinical overlap among these two disorders. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Dendritic spine pathology in neuropsychiatric disorders

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Nature neuroscience 2011-03-01

Substantial progress has been made toward understanding the genetic architecture, cellular substrates, brain circuits and endophenotypic profiles of neuropsychiatric disorders, including autism spectrum disorders (ASD), schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Braak's staging concept of Lewy body disease pathogenesis is based on a spatiotemporal sequence of alpha-synuclein deposition, with autonomic nervous system involvement before synucleinopathy in substantia nigra neurons. 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