This study updated a 2010 hypothetical model of major Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers based on new evidence. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study examined plasma phosphorylated tau 181 (P-tau181) and 217 (P-tau217) in 1,329 individuals aged 30-98 years from the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. 3 key findings →
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lumipulse and IP-MS Aβ42/40 exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy for detecting an abnormal amyloid-PET (areas under the curve [AUCs] of 0.81 and 0.84, respectively). 5 key findings →
Participants: 179 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While the field advances towards consensus definitions of existing concepts, the resistance vs resilience terminology may provide clarity in the communication of results in aging and dementia studies as well as provide a framework for the development of both hypotheses and study designs. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma pTau181 may have utility as a biomarker of AD pathophysiology and as a noninvasive screener for elevated brain Aβ.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our study demonstrated the robustness of a multisite Centiloid [ 11 C]PIB‐PET study and established a range of pathology‐based CL thresholds.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CSF p-tau217 was superior to p-tau181 for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →
Participants: 753 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
= 0.038) over time. Physical activity was associated with less synaptic dysfunction and cognitive activity with less synaptic dysfunction and lower amyloid burden over time, albeit effect sizes were small. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Area deprivation index (ADI), a tool used to capture the multidimensional neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage across populations, is highly relevant to the field of aging and Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
As more biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and age-related brain conditions become available, more sophisticated analytic approaches are needed to take full advantage of the information they convey. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Do MRI-based metrics of a CSF-dynamics disorder, disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid-space hydrocephalus (DESH), correlate with discordant amyloid biomarkers (low CSF β-amyloid 1-42, normal Aβ-PET scan)? 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
39/100
Several concepts, which in the aggregate get might be used to account for "resilience" against age- and disease-related changes, have been the subject of much research.
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 →