Significant progress has been made in understanding the pre-symptomatic phase of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Significant progress has been made in understanding the pre-symptomatic phase of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is critical for the function and survival of neurons that degenerate in the late stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Nerve growth factor (NGF) is critical for the regulation, differentiation, and survival of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons that degenerate in the late stage of Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These data support the hypothesis that neuronal endosomal dysfunction is associated with preclinical AD. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dysfunction of cholinergic basal forebrain (CBF) neurons of the nucleus basalis (NB) is a cardinal feature of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and correlates with cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Degeneration of cholinergic nucleus basalis (NB) cortical projection neurons is associated with cognitive decline in late-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Tau is a microtubule-associated protein that forms neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) in the selective vulnerable long projection neurons of the cholinergic basal forebrain (CBF) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nerve growth factor (NGF)-dependent cholinergic basal forebrain neurons degenerate during the progression of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Several recent studies indicate that activity of cholinergic enzymes in the cortex of people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer's disease (AD) are preserved. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A multitiered strategy was adopted to assess tau conformational changes within fibrillar lesions during the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Endocytic system dysfunction is one of the earliest disturbances that occur in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and may underlie the selective vulnerability of cholinergic basal forebrain (CBF) neurons during the progression of dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Endocytic alterations are one of the earliest changes to occur in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and are hypothesized to be involved in the selective vulnerability of specific neuronal populations during the progression of AD. 2 key findings →
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 →