27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
OASIS-3 is a compilation of MRI and PET imaging and related clinical data for 1098 participants who were collected across several ongoing studies in the Washington University Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center over the course of 15 years. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,098 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The full cohort included 1044 participants, of whom 779 comprised the proteomics cohort. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 674 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) develops over decades, but biological processes underlying susceptibility during midlife remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Across all cases, the SNCA association was indexed by a 5′ signal previously associated with dementia with Lewy bodies and rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder, rather than the canonical 3′ Parkinson’s disease variant. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,362 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study represents the largest PD AAO meta-analysis in European-ancestry populations to date. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 50,859 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the primary matched-feature comparison, reference areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were 0.851 for ADNI tau90, 0.860 for ADNI tau180, and 0.933 for OASIS3 tau180. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
According to the AT(N) framework, Alzheimers disease (AD) can be biologically characterised by amyloid deposition, tau pathology, and neurodegeneration, yet how these processes relate to whole-brain dynamics remains unclear. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Emerging evidence and expert opinion suggest that subcortical microhaemorrhages may be less closely related to cerebral amyloidosis than lobar lesions and may therefore warrant separate consideration in anti-amyloid treatment eligibility criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma APOE4 proteotyping accurately distinguished genotype-defined APOE ε4 carrier status and copy number while demonstrating AD-related associations comparable to DNA genotyping. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) are driven by multiple related yet distinct pathological processes that evolve over decades, resulting in substantial clinical and neuropathological heterogeneity. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings support MRI-derived LC intensity as a marker of early AD-related processes and suggest that LC intensity may provide complementary information not captured by plasma pTau 217 alone. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 163 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have improved substantially in predictive performance, yet results remain difficult to compare across studies that differ in cohorts, phenotype definitions, and evaluation procedures. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sequence models predict the molecular effects of genetic variation, yet their contribution to interpreting Alzheimer’s disease (AD) association signals remains uncertain. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Parental history of dementia is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, although the mechanisms underlying this association remain poorly understood. 5 key findings →
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 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 →