APOE alleles ε2, ε3, and ε4 account for essentially all the inherited risk of AD associated with this region. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
APOE alleles ε2, ε3, and ε4 account for essentially all the inherited risk of AD associated with this region. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A majority of mutations within the beta-amyloid region of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene cause inherited forms of intracerebral hemorrhage. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) undertook whole exome sequencing in 5,740 late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) cases and 5,096 cognitively normal controls primarily of European ancestry (EA), among whom 218 cases and 177 controls were Caribbean Hispanic (CH). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
LR11 is an ApoE receptor that is enriched in the brain. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease is the most common cause of dementia and represents a major public health problem. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The epsilon(4) allele of APOE confers a two- to fourfold increased risk for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), but LOAD pathology does not all fit neatly around APOE. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found comparable associations between dementia and PRS when comparing a C+T method with only 15 SNPs and PRS derived from Bayesian models that include > 800,000 SNPs (HR 5e‐08 = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.08–1.28; HR CSx = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07−1.27). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer´s disease (AD) is dominated by a complex cellular pathology which involves most brain cell types with glial cells increasingly recognized as playing fundamental roles in neurodegeneration. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Single-gene mutations can produce human progeroid syndromes--phenotypes that mimic usual or "normative" aging. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease (AD), the most common dementing syndrome in the United States, is currently established by the presence of amyloid-β and tau protein biomarkers in the setting of clinical cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Practice standards in medical genetics provide an implicit guide to the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetic tests. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Macrophage recognition of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium leads to a cascade of signaling events, including the activation of Src family and Syk kinases and the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are critical for host innate defense during early stages of bacterial infection. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Late-life dementia has a strong heritable component. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Identity-by-descent (IBD) mapping provides complementary signals to genome-wide association studies (GWASs) when multiple causal haplotypes or variants are present but not directly tested. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The AD PRS was associated with AD in the ADSP sample, with odds ratios per standard deviation ranging from 1.14 to 1.52 across ancestry groups and robust validation in independent cohorts (Figure 1). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent reports suggest that cultivated nonneuronal cells from individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) and other specific hereditary neurodegenerative disorders show hypersensitivity to DNA-damaging agents such as x-rays and radiomimetic chemicals. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Increasing evidence suggests that accurate prediction of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) symptom onset requires more than amyloid- and tau-centric biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/40, total tau and p-tau181 and plasma p-tau217. 4 key findings →
Participants: 484 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Examples include subpopulations of CD4+ T cells associated with inflammatory bowel disease, characterized by enrichment for a multi-cytokine phenotype and overlap with the naive NF-kB-activated, central memory, and effector memory CD4+ T subtypes, and subpopulations of microglia associated with Alzheimers disease, characterized by depletion of homeostatic programs and localization to the midtemporal gyrus, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and medial entorhinal cortex. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,380 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →