Amyloid-beta peptide (Abeta) has a key role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Genetic risk factors for Alzheimer's disease imply that inflammation plays a causal role in development of the disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 299 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Microglia, the resident macrophages of the CNS, are exquisitely sensitive to brain injury and disease, altering their morphology and phenotype to adopt a so-called activated state in response to pathophysiological brain insults. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The introduction of immunotherapy and its ultimate success will require re-evaluation of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease particularly with regard to the role of the ageing microvasculature and the effects of APOE genotype. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is associated with apolipoprotein E (APOE gene, apoE protein) polymorphism: current evidence suggests that the epsilon4 allele is a risk factor for the development of CAA and the epsilon2 allele predisposes to hemorrhage. 3 key findings →
Participants: 62 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Neuropathologic examination of 3 patients with Alzheimer disease in the Elan Pharmaceuticals trial using antibodies specific for different Abeta species showed in one case, 4 months after the immunization, evidence of a stage of active plaque clearance with "moth-eaten" plaques and abundant Abeta phagocytosis by microglia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In a population-based sample, increasing gliosis precedes development of Alzheimer lesions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our findings suggest that antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, hypertension, or minor head trauma are most likely to precipitate cerebral hemorrhage in patients with CAA who are also epsilon2 carriers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aβ immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) results in the removal of Aβ plaques and increased cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a feature of ageing and Alzheimer's disease (AD); it is also associated with intracerebral hemorrhage and stroke. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Microglia in the central nervous system are usually maintained in a quiescent state. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Elimination of interstitial fluid and solutes plays a role in homeostasis in the brain, but the pathways are unclear. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid plaques, one of the defining features of Alzheimer’s disease, are associated with synapse loss and accumulation of pathological tau in dystrophic neurites and reactive glia in their immediate vicinity. 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 →