The likelihood of amyloid positivity was associated with age and APOE ε4 status. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 377 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 97 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher levels of P-tau181 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI: 1.17-1.51]), NfL (HR = 1.19 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36]), and GFAP (HR = 1.36 [95% CI: 1.22-1.52]), and a lower Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio (HR = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.68-0.95]) were associated with an increased risk of progressing to clinically-diagnosed DAT. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,007 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As serum NfL correlates with functional impairment and brain atrophy in bvFTD at different disease stages, we propose it as marker of disease severity, paving the way for its future use as outcome measure for clinical trials. 1 key finding →
Participants: 74 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In cohort 1, PVEC increased the effect on AD-versus-HC discrimination from a Cohen d value of 1.68 to 2.0 for composite SUVRs and from 0.04 to 1.04 for mesial temporal cortex SUVRs. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with non-PVE-corrected data, PVE-corrected data yielded significantly higher changes in regional and composite SUV ratio (SUVR) over time ( P = 0.0002 for composite SUVRs). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Currently, 3 amyloid PET tracers are approved and commercially available for clinical use. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a well-established astrocytic biomarker for the diagnosis, monitoring and outcome prediction of traumatic brain injury (TBI). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the introduction of the new causal amyloid targeting therapies, the role of biomarker-assisted diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) has received a further boost. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
beta-Amyloid plaque deposition observed in brains from Alzheimer patients, might function as immune stimulus for glial/macrophages activation, which is supported by observations of activated microglia expressing interleukin (IL)-1beta and elevated IL-6 immunoreactivity in close proximity to amyloid plaques. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is neuropathologically characterized by neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Changes in the metabolic activity within the brain of patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (AD) were investigated and compared with biochemical alterations in the hippocampus induced by fimbria/fornix transection in the rat. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 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