Resveratrol was safe and well-tolerated. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 119 Evidence: high
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.
No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 432 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a large cohort of cognitively unimpaired individuals enrolled in a Phase 3 clinical trial and companion observational study, these findings confirm that higher baseline levels of amyloid and tau markers are associated with increased rates of cognitive decline and progression to functional impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 583 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
These data suggest that resveratrol decreases CSF MMP9, modulates neuro-inflammation, and induces adaptive immunity. 3 key findings →
Participants: 119 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This multicenter randomized clinical trial demonstrated the feasibility of sham-surgery-controlled stereotactic gene delivery studies in patients with AD. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 49 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
66/100
Statistically significant effects of AZD0530 treatment were not found on relative CMRgl reduction in an Alzheimer disease-associated region of interest or on secondary clinical or biomarker measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 159 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
55/100
No large-scale characterizations of neurofilament light chain (NfL) have been conducted in diverse populations. 1 key finding →
Participants: 890 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 482 participants in the safety population, 140 of 158 participants (88.6%) assigned to placebo, 117 of 166 participants (70.5%) to 224 mg of edonerpic maleate, and 120 of 158 participants (76.0%) to 448 mg of edonerpic maleate completed the trial. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 482 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) are composed of abnormal aggregates of the cytoskeletal protein tau. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The forms of tau in CSF and plasma are distinct, but in each specimen type, the levels of certain fragments are increased in AD. 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings lay groundwork to enable AD clinical trials with characterization and disease-specific tracking of DS adults. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Including plasma p-tau217/np-tau217 along with Aβ42/Aβ40 in predictive algorithms may streamline screening preclinical individuals into anti-amyloid clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloids are highly organized cross-beta-sheet-rich protein or peptide aggregates that are associated with pathological conditions including Alzheimer's disease and type II diabetes. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In addition to progressive dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by increased incidence of seizure activity. 2 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 →