Dysfunction of microglia, the brain's immune cells, is linked to neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Microglia are active modulators of Alzheimer's disease but their role in relation to amyloid plaques and synaptic changes due to rising amyloid beta is unclear. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings demonstrate the capability of a fingerstick collection to accurately quantify p ‐tau217 levels longitudinally and genotype ApoE. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 58 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One of the major histopathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is redundant senile plaques mainly composed of beta-amyloid (Abeta) aggregates. 5 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
CSF T-tau and P-tau as well as the APOE epsilon4/epsilon4 genotype are robust predictors of AD and are also associated with a more rapid progression from MCI to AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
Using spatial cell-type-enriched transcriptomics, we compare plaque-induced gene (PIG) expression in microglia-touching plaques, neighboring plaques, and far from plaques in an aged Alzheimer's mouse model with late plaque development. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study assesses whether C-terminal fragments (CTF) of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) are present in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and their potential as biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
γ-Secretase modulators (GSMs) represent an emerging oral therapy for preventing and targeting Aβ-amyloidosis in Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A population of >6 million people worldwide at high risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are those with Down Syndrome (DS, caused by trisomy 21 (T21)), 70% of whom develop dementia during lifetime, caused by an extra copy of β-amyloid-(Aβ)-precursor-protein gene. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individual cognitive profiles of patients with Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) are highly heterogeneous, suggesting possible biological subtypes. 1 key finding →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2) levels in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) have been associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) status. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
35/100
Autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) is caused by pathogenic variants in the APP, PSEN1 and PSEN2 genes, but a substantial fraction of reported variants is of unknown clinical significance. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The BACE1 gene encodes the beta-site APP-cleaving enzyme 1 and has been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 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
- 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated