27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Age, sex, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) are the strongest risk factors for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,592 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing evidence suggests an important role of liver function in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,581 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) framework uses cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of total tau (tTau) as a marker of neurodegeneration and CSF levels of phosphorylated tau 181 (pTau181) as a marker of tau tangles. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The trajectories of core Alzheimer disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers and the concurrent cognitive changes across the clinical spectrum remain unclear yet are important for clinical trial design. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It remains unclear which risk factors accelerate brain atrophy along with a progression from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 185 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
New technology is convenient for measuring blood total tau concentrations and provides a unique and increased opportunity for early intervention to slow cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,159 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Heterozygosity of the KL-VS haplotype has been associated with reduced amyloid and tau burden. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 243 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be an early indicator of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet its association with plasma biomarkers remains unclear among middle-aged and older adults (aged 50-86 years). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,712 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With blood-based phosphorylated tau biomarkers soon to be used for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease, analyzing tau levels in other conditions could enhance biomarker interpretability. 4 key findings →
Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Moreover, there is limited knowledge regarding associations with domain-specific cognitive decline and modifying effects of key individual characteristics. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,008 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In vivo biomarkers for detecting neuropathologies from repetitive head impacts (RHI), including chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), are needed. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 231 Evidence: moderate
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 →