The likelihood of amyloid positivity was associated with age and APOE ε4 status. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 377 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Baseline and 3-month visit data were available for 272 participants in arm 1 and 260 in arm 2 (median [IQR] age: 71 [65-77] and 71 [65-77] years; 150/272 male [55%] and 135/260 male [52%]; 122/272 female [45%] and 125/260 female [48%]; median [IQR] education: 12 [10-15] and 13 [10-16] years, respectively). 3 key findings →
Participants: 844 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
68/100
Baseline biomarkers largely do not predict risk for developing ARIA-E. ARIA-E was associated with significant longitudinal changes in several biomarkers, with larger reductions in amyloid PET and CSF p-tau and t-tau concentrations, and paradoxically greater hippocampal volume reduction and ventricular enlargement, suggesting that ARIA-E in bapineuzumab-treated cases may be related to increased Aβ efflux from the brain and affecting downstream pathogenic processes. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,512 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both high baseline GFAP (hazard ratio 3·6, 95% CI 2·2-5·7; p 42/40 , both GFAP (2·6, 1·4-5·0; p=0·0026) and amyloid β 42/40 (2·1, 1·2-3·6; p=0·0091) were independently associated with incident dementia whereas NfL was not (1·4, 0·8-2·5; p=0·28). 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Across the cohort of 212 individuals with SCD+ (M(Age) = 69.17 years, F 42.45%), 258 individuals with MCI (M(Age) = 72.93, F 43.80%), and 195 individuals with dementia (M(Age) = 74.07, F 48.72%), no main effect of education (ß = 0.52, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.58), but a significant education-by-group interaction on CL values, was found ( p = 0.024) using linear regression modeling. 1 key finding →
Participants: 212 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Obicetrapib significantly slowed AD biomarker progression over 12 months in participants with ASCVD, with the greatest effects in ApoE4 carriers. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
56/100
Individuals with early AD show heterogeneity in disease progression, which increases when stratifying on risk factors associated with progression. 3 key findings →
Participants: 302 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A panel of structure- and concentration-based plasma amyloid biomarkers may predict conversion to clinical MCI and dementia due to AD in cognitively unimpaired subjects. 3 key findings →
Participants: 203 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CSF p/t-tau ratio and NfL levels are strongly driven by ALS status. 1 key finding →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All four CSF biomarkers increase with age, but this effect deviates in AD for t-tau and p-tau. 1 key finding →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
In MCI reverters, abnormal biomarkers for AD pathology are associated with subsequent decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 757 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
WMH are only weakly and inconsistently associated with cognitive decline, which may be explained by heterogeneity of the underlying neuropathological substrates. 5 key findings →
Participants: 104 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SNfL was perceived as useful in 53% (n = 58) of the cases. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Assay drift may reduce statistical power or even confound analyses. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →