An estimated 40% of dementia is potentially preventable by modifying 12 risk factors throughout the life course. 4 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
57/100
We present a comprehensive global analysis of genetic variants associated with autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 550 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Low baseline Aβ42/Aβ40 was significantly associated with increased amyloid accumulation (β = 0.257, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.177-0.336, P < 0.001), and with higher risk of conversion to Aβ-PET positivity (Hazard ratio (HR) = 2.84, 95% CI 1.14-7.04, P = 0.025) and to MCI due to AD (HR = 3.25, 95% CI 1.17-9.01, P = 0.024). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study cohort comprised a total of 6108 individuals diagnosed with AD dementia during the study period (28.4% males and 71.6% females). 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,108 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
52/100
Our results highlight the efficacy of founder populations for AD genetic studies. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research increasingly suggests that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in older adults, in the absence of objective cognitive dysfunction or depression, may be a harbinger of non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These analyses suggest that CenTauR harmonization increases the comparability of tau‐PET data acquired with different tracers. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,089 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BIOFACE is a two-year study of clinical, cognition, and biomarkers that will shed light on the physiopathology and the potential utility of plasma and NPEs as non-invasive early diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in people younger than 65 years. 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
TP42/40 demonstrated value in the identification of individuals suffering a-MCI, in the prediction of progression to dementia, and in the detection of underlying AD pathology revealed by FDG-PET, Amyloid-PET and CSF biomarkers, being, thus, consistently associated with all the well-established indicators of AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 145 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene encoding brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF Val66Met ) is associated with worse impact of primary AD pathology (beta-amyloid, Aβ) on neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, rendering BDNF Val66Met an important modulating factor of cognitive impairment in AD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 149 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
Emerging digital tools have the potential to enable a new generation of qualitative and quantitative assessment of cognitive performance. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alois Alzheimer first described in a patient "a peculiar severe disease process of the cerebral cortex", people suffering from this pathology have been waiting for a breakthrough therapy. 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
- 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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