28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We identified that combining plasma p-tau217 and a brief cognitive composite score was strongly related to greater risk of progression to AD dementia in MCI patients, suggesting that these measures could be key components of future prognostic algorithms for early AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 110 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The role of microglia in tau accumulation is currently unclear but could provide an important insight into the mechanisms underlying Alzheimer's disease (AD) 1 . 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Comparable diagnostic performances and strong correlations between serum versus plasma pairs suggest that p-tau analyses can be expanded to research cohorts and hospital systems that prefer serum to other blood matrices. 5 key findings →
Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings support an association of APOE ɛ4 and p-tau181 with preclinical AD and hippocampus functioning. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood-based biomarkers such as tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (phosphorylated-tau181) represent an accessible, cost-effective and scalable approach for the in vivo detection of Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology. 5 key findings →
Participants: 103 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two genetic variants in strong linkage disequilibrium (rs9536314 and rs9527025) in the Klotho (KL) gene, encoding a transmembrane protein, implicated in longevity and associated with brain resilience during normal aging, were recently shown to be associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) risk in cognitively normal participants who are APOE ε4 carriers. 4 key findings →
Participants: 5,541 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing variation greatly impacted the performance of plasma Aβ42/40 in discriminating Aβ status. 1 key finding →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Creatinine and BMI are related to certain plasma biomarkers levels, but they do not have clinically relevant confounding effects for the vast majority of individuals. 1 key finding →
Participants: 748 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma biomarkers related to amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration (ATN) show great promise for identifying these pathological features of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) as shown by recent clinical studies and selected autopsy studies. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Clinical trials testing tau-targeting therapies may benefit from using fluid biomarkers to recruit individuals at risk of tau aggregation. 1 key finding →
Participants: 163 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The apolipoprotein E (APOE)ε4 allele is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset AD and is associated with aberrant cerebrospinal fluid levels (CSF) of total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau (p-tau), and amyloid-β (Aβ). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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 28,980 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.
1,038 records (3.6% 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 →