Plasma biomarkers showed promising diagnostic performances and potential clinical usefulness in diagnosing dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
44/100
and amyloid composite in the context of AD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dream recall status was associated with blood p ‐tau217 levels, APOE ε4 carriage, and future cognitive decline among older individuals cognitively healthy at baseline. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 is a well-established risk factor for Alzheimer disease, its role in the development of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) remains uncertain. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sortilin (SORT1) is a lipoprotein receptor that shows genome-wide association with hypercholesterolaemia, explained by its ability to control hepatic output of lipoproteins. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer research has been driven by genetic findings: from the 1990s until about 2005, by the identification of amyloid precursor protein (APP) and presenilin (PSEN) mutations, leading to the formulation of the amyloid hypothesis, and then from ~2007 by genome-wide studies which have led to the increasing appreciation of the importance of microglial insufficiency in the disease pathogenesis. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Analysis of the genotyping data revealed that the TMEM106B locus consists of four major haplotypes: HA/Ha (covering the coding region), and HB/Hb (covering the upstream regulatory region). 5 key findings →
Participants: 182 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disorder in which tau neurofibrillary tangles are a pathological hallmark closely associated with cognitive dysfunction and neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →
Participants: 615 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No significant associations were found between retinal thickness and AD risk (RNFL: odds ratio [OR]IVW = 1.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.986-1.017, P = 0.883; GCIPL: ORIVW = 1.008, 95% CI = 0.997-1.019, P = 0.172). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 31,434 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Annotation. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in older adults, characterized by the accumulation of pathological proteins – beta-amyloid (Aβ) and hyperphosphorylated tau protein – resulting in neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this literature review is to examine and contrast four dietary patterns to evaluate their influence on Alzheimer's prevention. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-targeting therapy has recently become widely available in the United States for the treatment of patients with symptomatic mild Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall PiB-PET uptake increased during the first two years (before ARIA-E) and decreased during the last two years (including ARIA-E episodes) (0.03±0.05 vs. -0.04±0.04 SUVR/year, p-value=0.01, Figure 2). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Atherosclerosis is a progressive, multifactorial disease driven by the interplay of lipid dysregulation, chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and maladaptive vascular remodeling. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cancer is a leading cause of death in China, and its epidemiological profile has shifted markedly in recent years. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 477 participants (70.9% women, mean age = 63 years), 339 (71.1%) completed the survey immediately after the e-learning, and 241 (50.5%) completed the three-month follow-up survey. 5 key findings →
Participants: 477 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant correlation was found between perceived cognitive decline and increased motivation to engage in dementia risk reduction behaviors (r = 0.44). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is an inherited cardiac condition, often caused by mutations in genes encoding desmosomal proteins. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Harmonized neuropsychological assessment for neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) is an urgent priority in clinics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The combination of antiretroviral therapy (cART) and preventive measures has significantly enhanced the management of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants recognized the added value of DCAs, and multiple factors were identified as facilitators and barriers for their use. 1 key finding →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
44/100
We found moderate or good agreement between self- and RC-administered performance, with intraclass correlation ranging from 0.59 to 0.83. 4 key findings →
Participants: 46 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among people with dementia, predicted 1-year mortality was higher among those with hip fracture (35.4%) versus those without hip fracture (14.8%), with similar patterns for pneumonia (49.6% vs. 13.0%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Across all participants, momentary effects of environmental distractions were minimal. 5 key findings →
Participants: 380 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-seven participants had a CDR of 0, 61 had a CDR of 0.5, and 20 had a CDR ≥ 1. 5 key findings →
Participants: 118 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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