27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Both t-tau and p-tau are suitable AD blood biomarkers, and p-tau217 is more sensitive than other tau biomarkers to differentiate MCI and AD. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 56 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma p-tau217 was the highest-performing biomarker for identifying biologically defined Alzheimer's disease, with pooled sensitivity of 88·1% (95% CI 86·7-89·5, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity of 88·7% (87·4-89·9, moderate certainty of evidence), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 91·1% (88·9-92·4, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio of 50·7 (40·6-63·4). p-tau181 pooled sensitivity was 80·5% (78·4-82·4, low certainty of evidence), specificity was 76·4% (74·1-78·6, low certainty of evidence), AUROC was 81·5% (80·2-82·9, low certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 13·4 (11·4-16·7). p-tau205 pooled sensitivity was 76·6% (70·7-81·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 86·0% (78·6-91·2, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 85·1% (80·7-89·6, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 20·2 (10·5-38·7). p-tau212 pooled sensitivity was 84·5% (75·5-90·6, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 87·3% (79·5-92·5, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 90·3% (86·6-94·1, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 41·2 (22·0-77·3). p-tau231 pooled sensitivity was 75·2% (71·3-78·8, moderate certainty of evidence), specificity was 75·3% (71·2-78·9, moderate certainty of evidence), AUROC was 80·2 (77·6-82·7, moderate certainty of evidence), and diagnostic odds ratio was 9·3 (7·0-12·2). 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Encouraging results were found for several biomarkers, alone or in combination. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau181) and 217 (p-tau217) have demonstrated high accuracy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis, defined by CSF/PET amyloid beta (Aβ) positivity, but most studies have been performed in research cohorts, limiting their generalizability. 3 key findings →
Participants: 468 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ADNI has had a profound impact in improving clinical trials for AD. 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened three separate work groups in 2011 and single work groups in 2012 and 2018 to create recommendations for the diagnosis and characterization of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasingly prevalent worldwide, and disease-modifying treatments may soon be at hand; hence, now, more than ever, there is a need to develop techniques that allow earlier and more secure diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although the use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid β1-42 (Aβ42), tau (T-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau181) gives added diagnostic and prognostic values, the diffusion is still limited in clinical practice and only a restricted number of patients receive an integrated clinico-biological diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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. Show only studies that are free to read
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.
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 27,780 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →