In BioFINDER-2, the mean (SD) age was 65.7 (14.4) with 261 females (52.7%). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 983 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Although studies in animal models suggest that TREM2 is protective against Alzheimer's pathology, its effect on tau pathology and its potential beneficial role in people with Alzheimer's disease is still unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 155 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Aggregated insoluble tau is one of two defining features of Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 448 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 is a robust measure for detecting amyloid plaques and can be utilized to aid in the diagnosis of AD, identify those at risk for future dementia due to AD, and improve the diversity of populations enrolled in AD research and clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
65/100
The use of an amyloid clock enabled visualization and analysis of biomarker changes as a function of estimated years from symptom onset in sporadic AD. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 118 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In DIAD, solanezumab was not associated with ARIA. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) framework uses cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of total tau (tTau) as a marker of neurodegeneration and CSF levels of phosphorylated tau 181 (pTau181) as a marker of tau tangles. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest a benefit of MI plus omega 3 in positive blood amyloid subjects. 4 key findings →
Participants: 483 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Due to trisomy of chromosome 21 and the resultant extra copy of the amyloid precursor protein gene, nearly all adults with Down syndrome develop Alzheimer's disease pathology by the age of 40 years and are at high risk for dementia given their increased life expectancy compared with adults with Down syndrome in the past. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 41 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline plasma MCP-1 levels were associated with longitudinal declines in overall cognitive and episodic memory performance in older adults over a 4-year follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,097 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The four emerging CSF biomarkers were significantly elevated in the mutation carriers (n = 235) versus noncarriers (n = 145). 4 key findings →
Participants: 235 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Brain amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques, a hallmark of the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease, have been associated with frailty. 4 key findings →
Participants: 477 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is growing evidence that cognitive decline can be affected by both nutritional aspects and inflammation. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 116 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Incorporating AD blood tests into screening for AD clinical trials may reduce the time and financial cost of enrollment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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