Our findings highlight the value of transethnic studies for identifying novel AD susceptibility loci. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
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.
53/100
Discovery efforts for susceptibility loci for Alzheimer disease could benefit from the use of neuropathologic intermediate phenotypes as a complement to other approaches. 2 key findings →
Participants: 625 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mechanisms underlying the protective effect of apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε2 against Alzheimer disease (AD) are not well understood. 4 key findings →
Participants: 982 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diagnoses of dementia, probable AD, and MCI in 636 autopsied subjects from the Religious Order Study and the Rush Memory and Aging Project were based on clinical evaluation and cognitive performance tests. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
We tested whether brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) gene expression levels are associated with cognitive decline in older adults. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Building infrastructures for international collaborations is necessary for managing the worldwide public health problem of AD and dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Minority Aging Research Study (MARS) is a longitudinal, epidemiologic cohort study of decline in cognitive function and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in older African Americans, with brain donation after death added as an optional component for those willing to consider organ donation. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Goal 1 of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease is to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer disease and Alzheimer disease-related dementias by 2025. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Genome-wide association studies have identified many loci associated with Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Energy adjusted niacin intake had a protective effect on development of AD and cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Participants: 3,718 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Florbetapir F 18 selectively binds Aβ in human brain tissue. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 428 older autopsied persons (mean age at death = 91 years, 70% women) considered for anti-amyloid treatment eligibility assessment, 58% had MCI and 42% had mild-stage Alzheimer dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dendritic spine structure is defined by filamentous actin (F-actin) and we observed depolymerization of synaptosomal F-actin accompanied by increased globular-actin (G-actin) at as early as 1 month of age in a mouse model of AD (APPswe/PS1ΔE9, male mice). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
Synaptic integrity is now recognized as a central component of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Transcriptome-wide association studies (TWASs) have been widely used to integrate gene expression and genetic data for studying complex traits. 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 →