Plasma pTau217R matched CSF eMTBR-tau243 and outperformed MTBR-tau243. 5 key findings →
Participants: 242 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In this prospective cohort study, we included adults aged 40 years or older with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia, based on cognitive test results and clinical assessments, consecutively recruited at two memory clinics in Sweden, as part of the Swedish BioFINDER-2 study. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 572 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Insoluble tau aggregates within neurofibrillary tangles are a defining neuropathological feature of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and closely correlate with clinical symptoms. 2 key findings →
Participants: 108 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
Using the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort [n = 1702, 50.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 68.4 (12.2) years], we compared the associations between tau/Aβ-PET load and fluid biomarkers alone versus biomarkers in a ratio with a reference protein (Aβ40 or np-tau) in univariate linear regression models. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,702 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Concentration of CSF pT217/T217 had low predictive error (average error: 13%), but also a low predictive range (ceiling 63 Centiloids). 5 key findings →
Participants: 346 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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
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
Biological staging of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) may improve diagnostic and prognostic work-up of dementia in clinical practice and the design of clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 426 Evidence: moderate
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 →