Ann Neurol 2018;84:737-748. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 443 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,916 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher educational level (standardized β = 0.23, P Conclusions and relevance Results of this study suggest that women and young patients with AD have relative preservation of brain structure when exposed to neocortical pathological tau. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 260 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The current conceptualization of Alzheimer disease (AD) is driven by the amyloid hypothesis, in which a deterministic chain of events leads from amyloid deposition and then tau deposition to neurodegeneration and progressive cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CSF levels of Aβ42 but not total and phosphorylated tau were lower in APOE ε4 carriers compared with noncarriers irrespective of diagnostic group (cohort A). 3 key findings →
Participants: 105 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We have previously reported a large Danish pedigree with autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia (FTD) linked to chromosome 3 (FTD3). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The APOE locus is the strongest genetic factor for Alzheimer's disease, with ε4 increasing and ε2 decreasing risk, yet the basis of these opposing effects remains unclear. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
55/100
Amyloid-positive cognitively healthy participants showed a significant increase in mI/creatine and mI/NAA levels compared to amyloid-negative healthy elderly (p Conclusions mI levels are elevated already at asymptomatic stages of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Non-modifiable (age, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4 genotype and sex) and modifiable risk factors (co-morbidities at baseline, such as hypertension and cardiovascular disease, BMI, and sleep duration) were analyzed with mixed-effects models, adjusted for age and sex, to predict longitudinal measurements of WMH, Aβ and tau. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 494 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Across 3 study samples, combining the functional connectome and molecular properties substantially enhanced the explanatory power compared to single modalities, providing a valuable tool to explain regional susceptibility to tau deposition in AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dominance of 4R over three-repeat (exon 10-) tau isoforms contrasts with earlier reports of R406W patients and was not sufficiently explained by the presence of H1/H2 haplotypes in two of the autopsied patients. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
Baseline tau-PET and a composite baseline cognitive score were the strongest independent predictors of cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the initial kindred of ten affected Italian individuals (mean age of disease onset 59·8 years [SD 8·7]), we detected significant linkage of Parkinson's disease to chromosome 14 and nominated LRP10 as the disease-causing gene. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Genetic pathways implicated in causing AD are related to altered levels of soluble tau through both Aβ-dependent and Aβ-independent mechanisms, which may have relevance for anti-tau drug development. 3 key findings →
Participants: 751 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ), believed to be a key trigger of Alzheimer disease (AD), could result from impaired clearance mechanisms. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed differential cellular effects on β-amyloid, pTau217 and cognitive measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 734 Evidence: moderate
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 30,980 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.
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 30,980 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