The likelihood of amyloid positivity was associated with age and APOE ε4 status. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 377 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Baseline and 3-month visit data were available for 272 participants in arm 1 and 260 in arm 2 (median [IQR] age: 71 [65-77] and 71 [65-77] years; 150/272 male [55%] and 135/260 male [52%]; 122/272 female [45%] and 125/260 female [48%]; median [IQR] education: 12 [10-15] and 13 [10-16] years, respectively). 3 key findings →
Participants: 844 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In subjects with MCI and evidence of amyloid pathology, the injury markers CSF t-tau and p-tau and hippocampal atrophy can predict further cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 110 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma Abeta42/Abeta40 ratio has potential as a prescreener to identify Alzheimer pathological changes in cognitively normal individuals with SCD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 248 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We present evidence of AD-induced changes in global brain functional connectivity specifically affecting long-distance connectivity. 2 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In common with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, PVHs and WMHs were significantly more extensive in dementia with Lewy bodies than in controls. 5 key findings →
Participants: 27 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
SUVr(60-90) and SUVr(40-60) overestimated binding with 13% and 10%, respectively, compared with RPM2. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It has been shown that atrophy of medial temporal lobe structures such as the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex shown on MRI may distinguish patients with Alzheimer's disease from healthy controls. 4 key findings →
Participants: 41 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating disorder of increasing prevalence in modern society. 2 key findings →
Participants: 86 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is characterized both by a lower mean level of functional connectivity as well as by diminished fluctuations in the level of synchronization. 2 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
48/100
Magnetic resonance imaging-based volumetric measurements provide a useful technique for quantifying in vivo regional cerebral atrophy in Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), structural and functional brain network organization is disturbed. 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.
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 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.
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 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 →