27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among Aβ-positive individuals, greater CR related to attenuated clinical progression in predementia stages of AD, but accelerated cognitive decline after the onset of dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 175 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline CSF levels of NGRN in patients with AD (median level, 2381 pg/mL [interquartile range, 1651-3416 pg/mL]) were higher than in cognitively normal participants (median level, 1712 pg/mL [interquartile range, 1206-2724 pg/mL]) (P = .04). 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 163 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CSF levels of YKL-40 may have utility for discriminating between cognitively normal individuals and patients with MCI or AD. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When patients with MCI underwent clinical follow-up, 29 progressed to dementia, while 44 remained stable. 2 key findings →
Participants: 73 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Low Aβ42 was the strongest predictor of clinical progression in patients with subjective complaints. 3 key findings →
Participants: 127 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline brain volume was lowest in AD but did not differ significantly between MCI, subjective complaints, and control groups (P > .38). 3 key findings →
Participants: 65 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Key points • Decreasing CBF relates to more advanced AD stages in all supratentorial regions. • The reduction of CBF does not reach a bottom level. • ASL-CBF has potential as a measure for disease progression in AD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 177 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
[(11)C]PIB scans were positive in 40 of 66 (61%) patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), 5 of 18 (28%) patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), 4 of 5 (80%) patients with Lewy body dementia, and 3 of 10 (30%) patients with other dementias. [(18)F]FDG uptake patterns matched the clinical diagnosis in 38 of 66 (58%) of AD patients, and in 6 of 18 (33%) FTD patients. 4 key findings →
Participants: 39 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We studied whether electroencephalography (EEG)-derived measures of brain oscillatory activity are related to clinical progression in nondemented, amyloid positive subjects. 2 key findings →
Participants: 205 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Analysis of variances, adjusted for sex and age, showed that all structures, except the globus pallidus, were smaller in AD than in controls. 3 key findings →
Participants: 773 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating disorder of increasing prevalence in modern society. 2 key findings →
Participants: 86 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 →