We found eight flortaucipir covariance patterns which were reproducible and overlapped with relevant gene expression maps. 5 key findings →
Participants: 418 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Amyloid deposition can be identified among cognitively normal elderly persons during life, and the prevalence of asymptomatic amyloid deposition may be similar to that of symptomatic amyloid deposition.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) serves as an initial symptom of preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 57 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The SVCI group showed lower CD in the temporal quadrant of the RPC network compared to the CN group (mean (SD), 42.34 (6.29) vs 48.45 (7.08); p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) scores 1) distinguish probable Alzheimer disease (AD) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subjects from nonamnestic MCI and no cognitive impairment (NCI) subjects, 2) help predict diagnosis at baseline, and 3) predict transition from NCI to MCI and from MCI to probable AD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 117 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MRC Cognitive Function and Ageing Study (CFAS) is a prospective longitudinal study of a population-based cohort of elderly people in six UK sites, evaluated using psychometric instruments and questionnaires to elucidate physical and mental health. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Florbetapir F18 has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for in vivo assessment of amyloid pathology in patients undergoing evaluation for Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 229 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
PiB and FDG showed similar accuracy in discriminating AD and FTLD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 62 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder characterized by cognitive and intellectual deficits and behavior disturbance. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reimbursement of amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) is lagging due to the lack of definitive evidence on its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
Ninety-one eyes of AD patients and 53 eyes of patients with other dementias were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The temporal meta-ROI can be used for differential diagnosis of dementia patients with [ 18 F]flortaucipir, [ 18 F]RO948, and [ 18 F]MK6240 tau PET with high accuracy, and that using very similar cut-offs of around 1.35 SUVR. 1 key finding →
Participants: 975 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Beta amyloid is one of the major histopathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
White matter hyperintensity volume predicts 1-year cognitive decline in a relatively healthy convenience sample that was similar to clinical trial samples, and therefore should be considered as a covariate of interest at baseline and longitudinally in future AD treatment trials. 3 key findings →
Participants: 804 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In contrast to the idea that hippocampal and amygdala volume loss occur in late phases of neurodegeneration, recent contributions point to the relevance of preexisting structural deficits that are associated with aging and are independent of amyloid deposition in preclinical Alzheimer disease cases. 5 key findings →
Participants: 455 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
The AI-powered pipeline achieved robust performance with intraclass correlation coefficients exceeding 0.97 for regional uptake estimation compared with MR-based ground truth. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 666 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown a great reduction in medial temporal lobe and hippocampal volume of patients with Alzheimer's disease as compared to controls.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid deposition is associated with lower cognitive performance both in AD patients and in the normal elderly, but the association is modified by CR, suggesting that CR may be protective against amyloid-related cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-PET presented higher diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and NPV than CSF Aβ1-42 but not Aβ42/40 ratio. 5 key findings →
Participants: 148 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This software program with application of SPM8 plus DARTEL to VBM provides a high performance for AD diagnosis by using MRI. 1 key finding →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
[18F]flutemetamol PET scans were positive in 133 out of 211 (63%) patients, of whom 110 out of 144 (76%) patients had a pre-PET Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and 23 out of 67 (34%) patients had a non-AD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 211 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
There is no evidence for individual risk prediction and even less for specific treatments. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Optimized tau PET classifiers may diagnose AD with high accuracy, but both tau PET and structural brain MRI capture partly unique information relevant for the clinical deterioration in AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Algorithms for computer-aided diagnosis of dementia based on structural MRI have demonstrated high performance in the literature, but are difficult to compare as different data sets and methodology were used for evaluation. 1 key finding →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The rising incidence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses significant challenges to traditional diagnostic methods, which primarily rely on neuropsychological assessments and brain MRIs. 2 key findings →
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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