64/100
Aβ-positive individuals can remain tau-negative for at least 5 years. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 45 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
63/100
Increased amygdalar diffusivity in the absence of tissue loss in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) may be related to microvacuolation, a common pathology associated with Lewy body disease in the amygdala. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MRI and CSF provide complimentary predictive information about time to conversion from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease and combination of the 2 provides better prediction than either source alone. 3 key findings →
Participants: 399 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found no significant correlation between CSF biomarkers and cognitive scores in any of the 3 clinical groups individually. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 399 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The diffusivity of gray matter is increased in regions that are atrophic in frontotemporal dementia, suggesting disruption of the cytoarchitecture of remaining tissue. 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
These data support the use of rates of change from serial MRI studies in addition to standard clinical/psychometric measures as surrogate markers of disease progression in AD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 55 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
During follow-up, 13 healthy patients converted to MCI or Alzheimer disease (AD), whereas 39 MCI subjects converted to AD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
Patterns of gray matter loss are associated with neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) pathology, specifically with NFT burden at Braak stages III and IV and with Braak stage itself at higher stages. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Rates of atrophy accelerate as individuals progress from amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) to typical late onset Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Participants: 46 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
The regions of loss observed in subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) who progressed to Alzheimer disease (AD) within 18 months of the MRI are typical of subjects with AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with high likelihood DLB typically have normal hippocampal volumes but have atrophy in the dorsal mesopontine GM nuclei. 1 key finding →
Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The authors assessed whether measures of hippocampal water diffusivity at baseline can predict future progression to Alzheimer disease (AD) in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 296 initially normal subjects, 31 (10%) progressed to a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia (27 amnestic MCI, 2 nonamnestic MCI, and 2 non-AD dementias) within 1 year. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events