Plasma AD biomarkers vary significantly in association with common medical comorbidities as well as ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Participants: 445 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The positive user experience and high acceptance of participants indicate that tablet-based cognitive testing in GP settings can be highly feasible and can thus lead to indicated specialist referrals. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Machines don't have eyes, but you wouldn't know that if you followed the progression of deep learning models for accurate interpretation of medical images, such as x-rays, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, pathology slides, and retinal photos. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma amyloid β-42 (Aβ42) and Aβ42/Aβ40 are increasingly recognized as biomarkers for dementia, with low levels indicating increased risk. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neuropsychology services will benefit from the implementation in clinics of harmonized digital tools with adequate scientific and technological standards. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
40/100
Trehalose is a naturally occurring disaccharide comprised of two molecules of glucose. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The symptom intensity and mortality of human diseases, conditions, and syndromes exhibit diurnal or 24 h patterning, e.g., skin: atopic dermatitis, urticaria, psoriasis, and palmar hyperhidrosis; gastrointestinal: esophageal reflux, peptic ulcer (including perforation and hemorrhage), cyclic vomiting syndrome, biliary colic, hepatic variceal hemorrhage, and proctalgia fugax; infection: susceptibility, fever, and mortality; neural: frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobe seizures, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, hereditary progressive dystonia, and pain (cancer, post-surgical, diabetic neuropathic and foot ulcer, tooth caries, burning mouth and temporomandibular syndromes, fibromyalgia, sciatica, intervertebral vacuum phenomenon, multiple sclerosis muscle spasm, and migraine, tension, cluster, hypnic, and paroxysmal hemicranial headache); renal: colic and nocturnal enuresis and polyuria; ocular: bulbar conjunctival redness, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, intraocular pressure and anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, and recurrent corneal erosion syndrome; psychiatric/behavioral: major and seasonal affective depressive disorders, bipolar disorder, parasuicide and suicide, dementia-associated agitation, and addictive alcohol, tobacco, and heroin cravings and withdrawal phenomena; plus autoimmune and musculoskeletal: rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, axial spondylarthritis, gout, Sjögren's syndrome, and systemic lupus erythematosus. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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. Show only studies that are free to read
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →