28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Middle-aged adults with faster 15-year epigenetic aging trajectories demonstrated worse cognitive performance, whereas those with slower biological aging trajectories exhibited cognitive resilience and more favorable AD biomarker profiles. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,833 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings demonstrate spatially concordant vascular and neuronal degeneration in the outer retina in preclinical AD. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Frailty index was associated with carboxylic acids and derivatives, fatty acyls and organooxygen compounds across multiple clusters, and a large number of lipids were linked to frailty score, potentially implicating dysregulation of energy metabolism in the pathophysiology of frailty and forming a panel of predictive biomarkers of at risk patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 118 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The association declines monotonically as control over ascertainment improves. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a fatal transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) that is confined to cervids (deer, moose, elk, and reindeer) but shares key properties with human neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s disease and frontal-temporal dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All three frameworks recognized biologically coherent AD-related signal despite differences in training cohort and assay methodology. 1 key finding →
Participants: 472 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Bidirectional stepwise linear regression analysis was performed to identify plasma biomarkers associated with brain Aβ deposition. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 541 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dysregulated insulin signaling in brain has been linked to cognitive impairment and dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older age was associated with lower Att-Z (β = −0.315, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The observed phenotypic and genetic associations highlight shared underlying mechanisms among plasma biomarkers. 2 key findings →
Participants: 696 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this cross-sectional study (n=272), plasma pTau217/Aβ42 ratio test accuracy was 90% in Veterans without TBI history, but was significantly lower (63-78% accuracy) in Veterans with TBI history, with lowest accuracy in those with greater TBI severity. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 93 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An age-related decline in vasodilation mediated by neurovascular nitric oxide (NO) and vasoconstriction driven by the Piezo1 receptor precede the aggregation of soluble brain proteins such as amyloid-β (Aβ), which then causes further disruption of brain solute homeostasis, ultimately leading to neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. 1 key finding →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Untargeted mass spectrometry remains underutilised for blood-based biomarker discovery in dementia research from large cohorts, where affinity-based approaches dominate. 3 key findings →
Participants: 14,258 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The analytic sample included 4,465 individuals (mean age 69.7±10.4 years; 58.7% female; 75.8% non-Hispanic White). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 51 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
a Structured abstract BACKGROUND Over the past couple of decades, the role of infections, as well as the involvement of the immune system, have been highlighted in the development of dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared to the CN group, both MCI (β=−1.25, SE=0.19, p <.001) and AD dementia (β=−1.52, SE=0.16, p <.001) participants had lower Brain & Vascular Health composite scores. 3 key findings →
Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The clock claims are unsupported. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 83 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current study was undertaken to unveil the protective effects of Luteolin, a natural flavonoid, against amyloid-beta (Aβ 1 - 42 )-induced neuroinflammation, amyloidogenesis, and synaptic dysfunction in mice. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study is to examine if hydrogen-rich saline reduced amyloid beta (Abeta) induced neural inflammation, and learning and memory deficits in a rat model. 1 key finding →
Participants: 84 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →