27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We propose a novel method to identify disease-related genetic variants enriched by imaging endophenotypes, which are the imaging traits associated with both genetic factors and disease status. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two novel SNPs (rs465401 and rs460420), both near the ADAMTS1 gene on chromosome 21, showed genome-wide significant associations with CSF NFL. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hippocampal subfield atrophy is a prime structural change in the brain, associated with cognitive aging and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,086 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirteen pathway clusters were identified, and eight pathway-specific PRSs were significantly associated with AD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,411 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Using the data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), we performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) between 565,373 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 16 key AD biomarkers from 1,576 subjects at four visits. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,576 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A multi-stage variable selection method is introduced for detecting association signals in structured brain-wide and genome-wide association studies (brain-GWAS). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Established AD risk factors, including APOE ε4 dosage and polygenic risk scores, were not associated with disease progression amyloid positive individuals who are actively declining. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 222 Evidence: high
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 27,380 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.
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 →