Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia, has an estimated heritability of approximately 70% 1 . 3 key findings →
Participants: 32,558 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
These results from the largest longitudinal cohort registry of patients with CAA-ri support the transient and potentially relapsing inflammatory nature of the clinical-radiologic acute manifestations of the disease and the effectiveness of slow oral tapering off after IV corticosteroid pulse therapy in preventing recurrences. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 158 participants who accurately recalled their Alzheimer disease risk assessment 6 weeks after risk disclosure, 75 (47.5%) believed their Alzheimer disease risk was more than 5% points different from the Alzheimer disease risk estimate they were given. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 158 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
66/100
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the second most common cause of presenile dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 515 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Characterization of the genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADD) provides a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the associated pathophysiological processes. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Circulating homocysteine levels (tHcy), a product of the folate one carbon metabolism pathway (FOCM) through the demethylation of methionine, are heritable and are associated with an increased risk of common diseases such as stroke, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,710 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
66/100
Researchers conducted a large, two-stage meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies in individuals of European ancestry.
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Disclosure of pleiotropic information did not increase anxiety or depression and may have decreased distress among persons at increased risk for 2 conditions. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sample 1 included 1656 participants (mean [range] age, 58.1 [29.7-85.6] years; 903 female [54.5%]), and sample 2 included 935 participants (mean [range] age, 67.6 [60.0-85.6] years; 518 female [55.4%]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,656 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias are a major public health challenge and present a therapeutic imperative for which we need additional insight into molecular pathogenesis. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We enrolled a cohort of 1070 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 1074 non-carriers with baseline assessments; of these participants, longitudinal measures (with a mean follow-up of 6 years) were available for 242 mutation carriers and 262 non-carriers. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
Median (interquartile range) CRP levels increased with mean (SD) age (43.3 [9.6] years, 0.95 mg/L [0.40-2.35 mg/L] vs 59.1 [9.6] years, 2.04 mg/L [0.93-4.75 mg/L] vs 61.6 [9.5] years, 2.21 mg/L [1.05-5.12 mg/L]; P Conclusions and relevance In this study, peripheral chronic low-grade inflammation in participants with ApoE4 was associated with shortened latency for onset of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
Risk information for Alzheimer disease (AD) may be communicated through susceptibility gene disclosure, even though this is not currently in clinical use. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
The ApoE ε4 allele is the most significant genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,766 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, cumulative incidence was uniformly higher in NACC than in the population-based cohorts. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,073 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Advances in genetic research have provided a basis for susceptibility testing for Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 160 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
44 participants were included: 20 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 24 non-carriers. 2 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Limited evidence suggests that the APOEε4 allele may confer risk for CTE, but previous studies were small with limited scope. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 294 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Microglia play a pivotal role in the maintenance of brain homeostasis but lose homeostatic function during neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 3414 included individuals, the mean (SD) age was 68.8 (6.0) years and 2116 (62%) were female. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,184 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CLU and MS4A4A eSNPs may at least partly explain the LOAD risk association at these loci. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Parkinson disease (PD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder with largely unknown genetic mechanisms. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A condensed protocol for communicating genetic risk for Alzheimer disease achieved similar educational results as an extended protocol in this study. 3 key findings →
Participants: 280 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Much of the genetic basis for Alzheimer disease (AD) is unexplained. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A polygenic score (PGS) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) was derived recently from data on genome-wide significant loci in European ancestry populations. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Evidence: high
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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