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.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Inflammation, microglia and astrocytes

Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are associated with increased risk of neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, the mechanisms by which TBI promotes AD pathogenesis remain poorly understood. It also remains unclear whether post-TBI sequelae, including sleep disturbances and seizures, play a role in driving disease progression. To investigate these relationships, we employed a translational approach using the Closed-Head Injury Model of Engineered Rotational Acceleration (CHIMERA) of repeated mild TBI (rmTBI) and an AD knock-in mouse model to assess sleep, power spectral density, epileptiform activity, and Aβ pathology one month post-injury. RmTBI caused elevated neurofilament-light and glial fibrillary acidic protein, markers of neuronal damage. Sex differences were observed in acute injury outcomes, sleep measures, and Aβ plaque size. Specifically, females exhibited longer recovery post-injury, higher mortality, decreased non-rapid eye movement sleep duration, and larger average plaque size than males at equivalent impact energy. These findings highlight the importance of including both sexes when establishing injury severity thresholds. Future studies should incorporate validated TBI biomarkers of neural injury to define equivalent injury parameters across sexes and examine the chronic effects of rmTBI on sleep, epileptiform activity and AD pathology.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 13 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 21 of 100. Raw total 21 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 21 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (bioRxiv)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Laboratory or animal study (title names “mouse”) — scores zero
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 13 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100.
Total 21 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Carriquiriborde, V., Yue, J., Cheng, W. H., Yildirim, T., Fan, J., Tok, S., et al. (2026). Repeated mild traumatic brain injury does not affect sleep or epileptiform activity one-month post-injury in a knock-in mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.24.740449

Vancouver

Carriquiriborde V, Yue J, Cheng WH, Yildirim T, Fan J, Tok S, et al. Repeated mild traumatic brain injury does not affect sleep or epileptiform activity one-month post-injury in a knock-in mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. bioRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.07.24.740449.

BibTeX

@article{carriquiriborde2026-c605517a,
  author  = {Carriquiriborde, V. and Yue, J. and Cheng, W. H. and Yildirim, T. and Fan, J. and Tok, S. and Kelly, M. and Wellington, C. L. and others},
  title   = {{Repeated mild traumatic brain injury does not affect sleep or epileptiform activity one-month post-injury in a knock-in mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease}},
  journal = {bioRxiv},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.64898/2026.07.24.740449},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.24.740449}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Also tagged “apnea”

196 studies in the library carry the topic tag “apnea”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 196 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →