27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a microglial surface receptor that triggers intracellular protein tyrosine phosphorylation. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is a microglial receptor that recognizes changes in the lipid microenvironment, which may occur during amyloid β (Aβ) accumulation and neuronal degeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Elevated risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with hypomorphic variants of TREM2, a surface receptor required for microglial responses to neurodegeneration, including proliferation, survival, clustering, and phagocytosis. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Variants in the gene encoding the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) were recently found to increase the risk for developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In Alzheimer's disease (AD) models, AD risk variants in the microglial-expressed TREM2 gene decrease Aβ plaque-associated microgliosis and increase neuritic dystrophy as well as plaque-associated seeding and spreading of tau aggregates. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) gene are associated with increased risk for late-onset AD. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States and the most common cause of dementia in the elderly. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study reveals an important role of astrocytic apoE3 and apoE4 on the deposition and accumulation of Aβ plaques as well as on certain Aβ-associated downstream effects. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent genome-wide association studies linked variants in TREM2 to a strong increase in the odds of developing Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It is clear that innate immune system status is altered in numerous neurodegenerative diseases. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia in the elderly, is a complex neurodegenerative disease marked by the appearance of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau tangles. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Tau-mediated neurodegeneration is a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
C9orf72 repeat expansions cause inherited amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)/frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and result in both loss of C9orf72 protein expression and production of potentially toxic RNA and dipeptide repeat proteins. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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.
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 →