In TRAILBLAZER-ALZ, 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 [53.3%] female) were randomized. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,955 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,154 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
72/100
Of 343 participants, the mean (SD) age was 72.56 (7.24) years, and 157 (51.1%) were female. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 343 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that this blood biomarker test could allow for distinguishing individuals with brain amyloid-positive PET findings from individuals with amyloid-negative PET findings and serve as an aid for Alzheimer disease diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 249 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, 2,277 individuals had at least 1 baseline blood biomarker available (n = 357 for CSF subsample, n = 649 for PET subsample), among whom 257 were diagnosed with clinical AD/mixed dementia during follow-up. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 357 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blood biomarkers showed significant longitudinal changes corresponding to cognitive decline, clinical AD, and structural MRI characteristics. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,327 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In DIAD, solanezumab was not associated with ARIA. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Impaired spatial navigation was associated with conversion to dementia within 2 and 4 years and with key CSF and MRI biomarkers for AD and neurodegeneration in patients with SCD and MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 300 participants with DS and a control group of 37 non-DS siblings, mean (SD) age was 45.0 (10.1) years, and 167 (49.6%) were men. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 300 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among cognitively normal participants with positive biomarkers, 34.4% developed cognitive impairment (Clinical Dementia Rating > 0) as compared to 8.4% of those with negative biomarkers. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 720 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
Further analyses to determine clinical utility are warranted. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,890 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study suggests that early tau deposition may follow multiple trajectories during preclinical AD and may involve several cortical regions. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 447 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this cross-sectional study of plasma biomarkers by race and genetic ancestry, the results indicated that plasma p-tau181, Aβ40, and NFL were lower in African American individuals based on self-reported race but not genetic ancestry. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 617 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
Although recent studies have demonstrated the prognostic utility of plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer pathology or neurodegeneration, such as pTau-181 and NF-L, whether other plasma biomarkers can further improve prediction of cognitive decline is undetermined. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 60 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CSF biomarkers, including P-tau, T-tau, Aβ 42 , Aβ 40 , and NFL, support in vivo identification of AD neuropathology and correlate with FTLD neuropathology. 4 key findings →
Participants: 101 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blood-based markers (BBMs) have recently shown promise to revolutionize the diagnostic and prognostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD), as well as to improve the design of interventional trials.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Performance was assessed in comparison to clinical diagnosis (blinded to plasma results) and amyloid status (CSF/PET). 4 key findings →
Participants: 268 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest an association of sHHV infection with white matter volume loss, attentional decline, and astrogliosis. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 119 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 12 biomarkers, only pTau was higher in frail individuals than in their not-frail peers (471.3 ± 58.1 pg/mL vs. 451.9 ± 61.1 pg/mL, p = 0.022). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 313 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Well-authenticated biomarkers can provide critical insights into the biological basis of Alzheimer disease (AD) to enable timely and accurate diagnosis, estimate future burden and support therapeutic trials. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data-driven WMH spatial patterns reflect discrete underlying etiologies including arteriolosclerosis, CAA, AD, and normal aging. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In DIAD, clinical disease stage and BDNF Met66 were associated with cognitive impairment and levels of site-specific tau phosphorylation. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 527 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proposed novel, pragmatic method to determine CSF biomarker cutoffs for AD does not require assessment of other biomarkers or assumptions concerning the clinical diagnosis of patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 497 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
Longitudinal racial differences in amyloid biomarkers are observed. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 179 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.
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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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 (3.3% 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