27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The Alzheimer Disease Genetics Consortium (ADGC) performed a genome-wide association study of late-onset Alzheimer disease using a three-stage design consisting of a discovery stage (stage 1) and two replication stages (stages 2 and 3). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study, levels of total A(beta)x-40 and A(beta)x-42 were elevated early in dementia and levels of both peptides were strongly correlated with cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Therapeutic preservation of neuronal PGC-1alpha expression promotes the nonamyloidogenic processing of amyloid precursor protein precluding the generation of amyloidogenic Abeta peptides. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings highlight the value of transethnic studies for identifying novel AD susceptibility loci. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We confirm in a completely independent data set that CR1, CLU, and PICALM are AD susceptibility loci in European ancestry populations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Extracellular deposition of the beta/A4 amyloid peptide is a characteristic feature of the brain in patients with Alzheimer disease. beta/A4 amyloid is derived from the amyloid precursor protein (APP), an integral membrane protein that exists as three major isoforms (APP695, APP751, and APP770). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The turnover and processing of the Alzheimer beta/A4 amyloid precursor protein (beta APP) has been studied in PC12 cells after treatment with agents that regulate protein phosphorylation. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid deposition is a neuropathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
FE65 binds to the Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein (APP), but the function of this interaction has not been identified. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The metabolic fate of the Alzheimer beta/A4 amyloid precursor protein (APP) includes intraamyloid proteolysis that leads to the production of secreted N-terminal and cell-associated C-terminal fragments. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although the Alzheimer amyloid protein precursor (APP) has been studied intensely for more than a decade, its function in neurons is unresolved. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Studies of processing of the Alzheimer beta-amyloid precursor protein (betaAPP) have been performed to date mostly in continuous cell lines and indicate the existence of two principal metabolic pathways: the "beta-secretase" pathway, which generates beta-amyloid (A beta(1-40/42); approximately 4 kDa), and the "alpha-secretase" pathway, which generates a smaller fragment, the "p3" peptide (A beta(17-40/42); approximately 3 kDa). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A major component of amyloid deposits found in Alzheimer disease and Down syndrome is the beta/A4 peptide, which is derived from the Alzheimer amyloid protein precursor (APP). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →