However, the previous view of significant cholinergic cell loss during aging has been challenged. 2 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.
To elucidate the mechanisms involved in beta-amyloid-mediated inflammation in Alzheimer's disease, transgenic Tg2576 mice containing as transgene the Swedish double mutation of human amyloid precursor protein 695, were examined for the expression pattern of various cytokines using double immunocytochemistry and laser scanning microscopy. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
For studying rare hereditary Alzheimer's disease (AD), transgenic (Tg) animal models overexpressing amyloid-beta protein precursor (AbetaPP) followed by increased amyloid-beta (Abeta) formation are used. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
beta-Amyloid plaque deposition observed in brains from Alzheimer patients, might function as immune stimulus for glial/macrophages activation, which is supported by observations of activated microglia expressing interleukin (IL)-1beta and elevated IL-6 immunoreactivity in close proximity to amyloid plaques. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
To address the question of whether beta-amyloid peptides also affect cholinergic neurotransmission in vivo, brain tissue from transgenic Tg2576 mice with Alzheimer plaque pathology at ages ranging from 7 to 24 months were examined by immuno- and histochemical staining for choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) and acetycholinesterase (AChE), by assaying cholinergic enzyme activities and high-affinity choline uptake as well muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic receptor binding levels by quantitative autoradiography. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease, the most common neurodegenerative disorder of senile dementia, is characterized by two major morpho-pathological hallmarks. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The molecular mechanisms of beta-amyloidogenesis in sporadic Alzheimer's disease are still poorly understood. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
36/100
Acetylcholine is widely distributed in the nervous system and has been implicated to play a critical role in cerebral cortical development, cortical activity, controlling cerebral blood flow and sleep-wake cycle as well as in modulating cognitive performances and learning and memory processes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with Down syndrome (human trisomy 21) develop neuropathological and cholinergic functional defects characteristic of Alzheimer's disease, which has been attributed to the location of the Alzheimer beta-amyloid precursor protein on chromosome 21. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →