Subtraction MRI has potential as a visual aid increasing the sensitivity of ARIA-E assessment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
ARIA-E is rare in cognitively unimpaired Aβ+ and Aβ- populations prior to anti-amyloid drug intervention. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,250 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current approaches to the early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) rely upon classifying individuals as "positive" or "negative" for biomarkers related to the core pathology of β-amyloid (Aβ). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 71 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MRI can also be used to assess comorbid vascular pathology and define homogeneous groups for inclusion or for subject stratification. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent developments of PET amyloid ligands have made it possible to visualize the presence of Aβ deposition in the brain of living participants and to assess the consequences especially in individuals with no objective sign of cognitive deficits. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The hypothesis that amyloid deposition is the leading cause of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is supported by findings in transgenic animal models and forms the basis of clinical trials of anti-amyloid agents. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
53/100
This review provides a comprehensive state-of-the-art conceptual review of radiological features, clinical detection and classification challenges, pathophysiology, underlying biological mechanism(s) and risk factors/predictors associated with ARIA. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
[ 18 F]flutemetamol data can now be expressed in Centiloid units, enhancing its utility in clinical and research applications for β-amyloid imaging. 2 key findings →
Participants: 74 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study suggests that amyloid load is significantly raised in over 80% of subjects with DLB, while amyloid pathology is infrequent in PDD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reduced amyloid was observed in self-identified NHB participants who passed initial eligibility criteria for the A4 study. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With the advent of PET imaging in 1976, 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG)-PET became the preferred method for in vivo investigation of cerebral processes, including regional hypometabolism in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Florbetaben is a fluorine-18 ( 18 F)-labeled stilbene derivative that was developed as a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer for routine clinical application to visualize β-amyloid plaques in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) brain. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
PIB-PET imaging is a sensitive and specific marker for underlying Aβ amyloid deposition and represents an important investigative tool for examining the relationship between amyloid burden, clinical symptoms and structural and functional changes in dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
NODDI-derived ODI is associated with tau PET signal, even in preclinical disease and may discriminate individuals with-and without tau beyond the MTL. 3 key findings →
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 30,980 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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