Dementia was associated with mortality in 70% of older adults with DS. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
60/100
The heritability of Alzheimer's disease estimated from twin studies is greater than the heritability derived from genome-based studies, for reasons that remain unclear. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,586 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Previous estimates of the utility of polygenic risk score analysis for the prediction of Alzheimer disease have given area under the curve (AUC) estimates of <80%. 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results showed different pattern of APOE contribution in PRS risk predictions of AD/MCI and amyloid deposition. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Genome-wide association studies have identified dozens of loci that alter the risk to develop Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer disease (AD), a progressive and neurodegenerative disease, is the most common form of dementia with high incidence in elderly people. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a leading cause of mortality among the elderly. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For AD and PD, we found significant enrichment of heritability in annotations marking gene activity in immune cells. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We estimate the maximum prediction accuracy for the risk of Alzheimer's disease based on disease prevalence and heritability of liability. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex disorder with a clear genetic component. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The apolipoprotein E (APOE) epsilon4 allele is the best established genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The vast majority of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cases are late onset (LOAD), which is genetically complex with heritability estimates up to 80%. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disease and it poses an ever-increasing burden to an aging population. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The importance of the complement system in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis has been emphasized through recent genome wide association studies. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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