We found a strong, positive correlation between all the measurements. 5 key findings →
Participants: 40 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.
The combined model (Harrell's C = 0.82 [0.78-0.86]) was significantly superior to demographics (β = 0.100, P < .001), magnetic resonance imaging (β = 0.037, P = .011), and PET only models (β = 0.053, P = .003).The models can be used to calculate individualized risk, for example, a female MCI patient (age = 60, APOE ε4 positive, Mini-Mental State Examination = 25, hippocampal volume = 5.8 cm3, amyloid PET positive) has 35% (19-57) risk in one year and 85% (64-97) risk in three years. 3 key findings →
Participants: 411 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All assessed BBM levels varied by over 10% by collection tube type. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
In regression analyses across the whole study sample adjusted for age, sex, and diagnostic group, there was no relationship between HbA1c or fasting glucose and CSF tau, p-tau 182, or Abeta42 levels. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 91 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
p-Tau217 levels were highest in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, whereas NfL levels were highest in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
[18F]flutemetamol PET scans were positive in 133 out of 211 (63%) patients, of whom 110 out of 144 (76%) patients had a pre-PET Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and 23 out of 67 (34%) patients had a non-AD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 211 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Different clinical variants of probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) share underlying plaques and tangles but show distinct atrophy patterns. 2 key findings →
Participants: 52 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After correction for age, sex, and education, CSF tau levels were found to be negatively related to the Visual Association Test (standardized β = -0.3, P < .05), whereas CSF Aβ1-42 levels were found to be positively related to the Mini-Mental State Examination (β = 0.3, P < .05), the frontal assessment battery (β = 0.5, P < .05), and digit span backwards test (β = 0.3, P = .01). 5 key findings →
Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current diagnostic pathways are heterogeneous, meaning many AD patients are missed while low-risk patients undergo unnecessary procedures. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Regional functional connectivity (FC) of 39 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), 23 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 43 healthy elderly controls was studied using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI). 4 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-β (Aβ)42 and arterial calcification were associated with cognitive performance. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →