Preclinical AD as detected by PET PiB is not benign, as it is associated with progression to symptomatic AD. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Measures of neuronal loss are likely good surrogates for clinical and radiological disease progression in Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 23 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC) at Washington University (WU). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that CSF VILIP-1 and VILIP-1/Aβ42 offer diagnostic utility for early AD, and can predict future cognitive impairment in cognitively normal individuals similarly to tau and tau/Aβ42, respectively. 3 key findings →
Participants: 211 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The in vivo measure of cerebral amyloidosis known as [(11)C]PiB is associated with cross-sectional regionally specific brain atrophy and longitudinal cognitive decline in multiple cognitive domains that occur before the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Associations of physical exercise with Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers and cognitive functioning have been observed cross-sectionally. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Atlas normalization, as commonly used by functional data analysis, provides an automated solution to the widely encountered problem of correcting for head size variation in regional and whole-brain morphometric analyses, so long as an age- and population-appropriate target atlas is used. 2 key findings →
Participants: 49 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
47/100
Reduction in CSF Abeta(42), likely reflecting Abeta aggregation in the brain, is associated with brain atrophy in the preclinical phase of AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results are supportive of an association between exercise engagement and AD biomarkers in cognitively normal older adults. 5 key findings →
Participants: 56 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Controversy persists regarding whether Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a distinct entity or instead exists on a continuum with nondemented aging. 5 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subtle changes in objective spatial navigation ability have been observed in the preclinical stage of Alzheimer disease (AD) cross-sectionally and have been found to predict clinical progression. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Before any manifestations of cognitive or behavioral changes, there were differences in resting state connectivity in cognitively normal subjects with brain amyloid deposition, suggesting that early manifestation of Abeta toxicity can be detected using resting state fMRI. 3 key findings →
Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive decline is commonly observed in advanced aging even in the absence of disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 93 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging and early-stage Alzheimer disease (AD) have been shown to be associated with increased RT intraindividual variability (IIV, as reflected by the coefficient of variation) and an exaggeration of the slow tail of the reaction time (RT) distribution in attentional control tasks, based on ex-Gaussian analyses. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
White matter microstructural integrity was assessed using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in 25 young adults, 25 nondemented older adults, and 25 age-matched older adults with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). 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 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.
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 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 →