Patients with MCI converted to AD at an annual rate of 17.2%. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 85 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In persons selected from a population-based study, elevated amyloid levels at baseline were associated with worse cognition and imaging biomarkers at baseline and with greater clinical decline and neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 286 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The vitamin E and donepezil trial for the treatment of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was conducted at 69 centers in North America; 24 centers participated in an MRI sub study. 2 key findings →
Participants: 131 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
GFAP was associated with amyloid and tau PET in multivariable models. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 200 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MRI and CSF provide complimentary predictive information about time to conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease and combination of the 2 provides better prediction than either source alone. 3 key findings →
Participants: 399 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Different biomarkers for Alzheimer disease provide different information from one another that is likely to be complementary. 1 key finding →
Participants: 34 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The NIA-AA criteria apply to most MCI subjects in both the community and clinical trials settings; however, a sizeable proportion of subjects had conflicting biomarkers, which may be very important and need to be explored. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) population, we examined (1) cross-sectional relationships between amyloid deposition, hypometabolism, and cognition, and (2) associations between amyloid and hypometabolism measurements and longitudinal cognitive measurements. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Trajectories of Aβ42 level in CSF, FDG uptake, and hippocampal volume vary across different cognitive stages. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 819 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Preliminary results do not indicate that TBI or PTSD increase the risk for AD measured by amyloid PET. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
TBI and/or PTSD were not associated with elevated AD biomarkers. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Total tau protein (T-Tau) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) have emerged as candidate plasma biomarkers of neurodegeneration, but studies have not compared how these biomarkers cross-sectionally or longitudinally associate with cognitive and neuroimaging measures. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 995 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based volumetric measurements of medial temporal lobe (MTL) structures can discriminate between normal elderly control subjects and patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) of moderate to advanced severity. 1 key finding →
Participants: 94 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A statistically significant yearly decline in hippocampal volume and an increase in temporal horn volume was identified in elderly control subjects who represent typical aging individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings emphasize that treatments that remove Aβ and completely stop downstream effects on tau and neurodegeneration would only be partially effective in slowing of cognitive decline or reversing cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These data suggest that p-tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 ratios provide similar clinical information in the assessment of amyloid pathology. 4 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Their distinct spatial distributions, namely periventricular versus deep WMH, may differ by underlying age-related and pathobiological processes contributing to cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,144 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MRI and 1H MRS findings in single-domain aMCI are consistent with a pattern similar to that of Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Here, we review progress by the Penn Biomarker Core in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) toward developing a pathological cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarker signature for mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as a biomarker profile that predicts conversion of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or normal control subjects to AD. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
The regions of loss observed in subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) who progressed to Alzheimer disease (AD) within 18 months of the MRI are typical of subjects with AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
55 of the 152 (36.2 %) aMCI subjects progressed to AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The APOE*E4 genotype status appears to have a greater deleterious effect on gross hippocampal pathology and memory performance in women than in men. 4 key findings →
Participants: 193 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The authors assessed whether measures of hippocampal water diffusivity at baseline can predict future progression to Alzheimer disease (AD) in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
The present study indicated that most individuals with the comorbidity of epilepsy and dementia have complex partial seizures that may be adequately controlled on AED therapy. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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 Where this research is being discussed: events