For Aβ42/Aβ40, cutoffs across cohorts were <0.059 (BioFINDER), <0.057 (ADNI), and <0.058 (UCSF). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 750 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In this prospective cohort study, we included adults aged 40 years or older with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia, based on cognitive test results and clinical assessments, consecutively recruited at two memory clinics in Sweden, as part of the Swedish BioFINDER-2 study. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 572 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This Swedish study of over 1,200 people with memory symptoms found that a blood test combining p-tau217 with an amyloid ratio (the 'Amyloid Probability Score 2') was far more accurate at identifying Alzheimer's disease than doctors' clinical judgment alone. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,213 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This large multi-country study tested a fully automated, commercially available blood test (Lumipulse platform, measuring p-tau217) in nearly 1,800 people across memory clinics and, notably, primary care doctors' offices in Sweden, Spain, and Italy. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,767 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood biomarkers indicative of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology are altered in both preclinical and symptomatic stages of the disease.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It is not known exactly where amyloid-β (Aβ) fibrils begin to accumulate in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD).
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid status was determined by CSF in 347 patients (189 positive [54.5%]) and by PET imaging in 152 patients (66 positive [43.4%]). 4 key findings →
Participants: 499 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study included 381 MCSA and 584 BioFINDER-2 participants. 5 key findings →
Participants: 381 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the whole cohort, p ‐tau217, NfL, GFAP and p ‐tau181 were significantly increased over time showing more accelerated increase in Aβ+ than Aβ‐ participants. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 718 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To efficiently implement plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for staging and prognosis of Alzheimer disease (AD), we must understand their dynamics across disease progression. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma β-synuclein levels were higher in preclinical AD and even higher in MCI and AD dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 48 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With one of the scores, higher adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet was associated with a reduced risk of AD and all-cause dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 25,898 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
16% of individuals were identified as tau-accumulators. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 29 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CSF and plasma cohorts were on average 71.4(±8.5) and 72.2 (±9.3) years of age, 49.1%/50.8% was female, and 263/453 (0.59%/51.8%) were cognitively impaired, respectively. 4 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed differential cellular effects on β-amyloid, pTau217 and cognitive measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 734 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →