Our data suggest that structural MRI can be used to identify biologically and clinically meaningful subtypes of AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We studied the promising Alzheimer biomarker plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 231 (p-tau231) in a cohort of cardiac arrest patients who survived to intensive care to predict long-term neurological outcomes. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 425 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To efficiently implement plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for staging and prognosis of Alzheimer disease (AD), we must understand their dynamics across disease progression. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Non-modifiable (age, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4 genotype and sex) and modifiable risk factors (co-morbidities at baseline, such as hypertension and cardiovascular disease, BMI, and sleep duration) were analyzed with mixed-effects models, adjusted for age and sex, to predict longitudinal measurements of WMH, Aβ and tau. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 494 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this patient, the clinical disease symptoms progressed rapidly in life, paralleled with an annual increase of tau PET retention of 20% to 40% in many cortical regions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In both cohorts, CSF MTBR-tau243 was associated with tau-PET temporal meta-ROI burden (BioFINDER-2: β = 1.1, p = < 0.0001 and Knight-ADRC: β = 0.7, p = < 0.0001), and this association did not differ by sex (BioFINDER-2 β = 0.04, p = 0.6 and Knight-ADRC: β = 0.009, p = 0.9). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 446 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
Both visual read methods exhibited strong concordance with semiquantitative SUVRs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,654 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Across 3 study samples, combining the functional connectome and molecular properties substantially enhanced the explanatory power compared to single modalities, providing a valuable tool to explain regional susceptibility to tau deposition in AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
High correlations between plasma and serum were observed for most assays (ρ > 0.8), though plasma often yielded higher concentrations. 5 key findings →
Participants: 100 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
Plasma p-tau217 showed strong diagnostic performance for distinguishing AD from bvFTD (96% accuracy) and PPD (93% accuracy). 5 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
Baseline tau-PET and a composite baseline cognitive score were the strongest independent predictors of cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is a need for an accessible biomarker that can complement current cerebrospinal fluid and imaging biomarkers in an accurate and early diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 contributed most to identify Aβ-positivity, while continuous Aβ-PET load within the positive range was best predicted by plasma P-tau217. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,053 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
< 0.001), with the automated approach more likely to classify a scan as tau negative and lower agreement between methods in more severe cases and AD clinical variants. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
16% of individuals were identified as tau-accumulators. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 29 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CSF and plasma cohorts were on average 71.4(±8.5) and 72.2 (±9.3) years of age, 49.1%/50.8% was female, and 263/453 (0.59%/51.8%) were cognitively impaired, respectively. 4 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In both cohorts there were significant associations between CSF MTBR-tau243 and the temporal meta-ROI (BioFINDER-2: t = 17.1, p < 0.001, Knight-ADRC: t=11.0, p <0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
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. 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
- 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated