30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Second, we examined volumetric associations with amyloid (amyloid positive, tau negative versus control) and tau in the presence of amyloid (amyloid positive, tau positive versus amyloid positive, tau negative) across 52 brain areas. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 306 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The finalized AU-ARROW protocol is expected to allow development of an evidence-based innovative treatment plan to reduce cognitive decline and dementia risk, and effective transfer of research outcomes into Australian health policy. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 600 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A recent Phase 3 trial did not meet its primary clinical endpoint in the overall population, but demonstrated significant benefits in cognition, function, and brain volumetric MRI (vMRI) in the prespecified subgroup with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 162 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Robust concordance between CSF biomarkers and amyloid PET visual status was observed (for Aβ42/Aβ40, AUC: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83-0.97; p < 0.0001), confirming CSF biomarkers as a reliable alternative to amyloid PET in these studies. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The APOE4 allele, but not AD-GRS, was associated with baseline lower hippocampus volume (β = -0.27, p = 0.001), greater amyloid deposition (β = 0.48, p = 0.001), 2-year decline in hippocampus (β = -0.27, p = 0.01), total gray matter volume (β = -0.25, p = 0.01), and cortical thickness (β = -0.28, p = 0.003). 5 key findings →
Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Deposition of amyloid plaques in the brain is one of the two main pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Convergent evidence across the literature supports the use of resting-state connectivity as a biomarker of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,363 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between July 22, 2014, and May 17, 2018, 261 participants entered the open-label phase. 211 were randomly assigned losartan (n=105) or placebo (n=106). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 105 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The likelihood of amyloid positivity was associated with age and APOE ε4 status. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 377 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma Aβ40 values might not distinguish between PET (+) and PET (-) people. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,047 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Given the impact of discrepant thresholds on tau positivity rates, biomarker staging, and eligibility for future clinical treatment trials, recommendations are offered to select cut-point derivations based on the unique goals and priorities of different studies. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 6,536 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Temporal imaging variables may provide independent prognostic information beyond baseline risk, supporting a dynamic model of hemorrhagic risk in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,069 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Treatment with donanemab resulted in rapid reduction of amyloid, even after a single dose. 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventy-one studies were included for review, representing a total of 6757 patients (2350 AD, 793 MCI, 2902 healthy controls (HC), and 841 others with a range of other neurodegenerative diagnoses). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 6,757 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 49,227 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 2846 articles identified, 94 studies were eligible, with up to 14 529 participants for WMH, 16 012 participants for BI, 15 693 participants for CMB, and 4587 participants for PVS. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 529 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Consortium is a collaborative network of researchers working together on a range of large-scale studies that integrate data from 70 institutions worldwide. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,826 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Identifying genetic variants influencing human brain structures may reveal new biological mechanisms underlying cognition and neuropsychiatric illness. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,151 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lower intakes of nutrient-dense foods and higher intakes of unhealthy foods are each independently associated with smaller left hippocampal volume. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 255 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
WMH were associated with increased risk of cognitive dysfunction and could become a neuroimaging indicator of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 19,040 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Solanezumab, which targets monomeric amyloid in persons with elevated brain amyloid levels, did not slow cognitive decline as compared with placebo over a period of 240 weeks in persons with preclinical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,169 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We report the case of a 79-year-old woman with Alzheimer's disease who participated in a Phase III randomized controlled trial called CLARITY-AD testing the experimental drug lecanemab. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results indicate a strong association between WMH and MCH, a common manifestation of cerebral amyloid angiopathy and ARIA-H. These results suggest that increased WMH volume may represent an early sign of vessel amyloidosis, likely prior to the emergence of MCH. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 15 eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 109 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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.
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