27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 343 participants, the mean (SD) age was 72.56 (7.24) years, and 157 (51.1%) were female. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 343 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the spread of tau pathology throughout the cerebral cortex. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,612 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Biological staging of individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) may improve diagnostic and prognostic workup of dementia in clinical practice and the design of clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 426 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Longitudinal tau positron emission tomography (PET) is a relevant outcome in clinical trials evaluating disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) α-synuclein (α-syn) seed amplification assays (SAAs) can detect Lewy body pathology (LBP) with high accuracy but are invasive and costly. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 1,567 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In Alzheimer's disease, post-mortem studies have shown that the first cortical site where neurofibrillary tangles appear is the transentorhinal region, a subregion within the medial temporal lobe that largely overlaps with Brodmann area 35, and the entorhinal cortex. 5 key findings →
Participants: 215 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Within the training set, individuals closer to or beyond their parent's symptom onset demonstrated reduced grey matter volume and altered functional connectivity, specifically in regions known to be vulnerable in Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 138 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with behavioural Alzheimer's disease showed worse memory scores than behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and did not differ from typical Alzheimer's disease, while executive function composite scores were lower compared to behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and typical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) can present with distinct clinical variants. 4 key findings →
Participants: 93 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Tau is a hallmark pathology of Alzheimer's disease, and animal models have suggested that tau spreads from cell to cell through neuronal connections, facilitated by β-amyloid (Aβ). 3 key findings →
Participants: 312 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn) is an unsupervised learning algorithm that uniquely enables the identification of subgroups of individuals with distinct pseudo-temporal disease progression patterns from cross-sectional datasets. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →