Chronic pain and cognitive impairment are rising ageing-related burdens. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 387,649 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Nuclear depletion of TDP-43 is a defining pathological feature of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), leading to widespread RNA misprocessing, including the formation of cryptic exons. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many loci that contribute to the risk of neurodegenerative diseases. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MRI studies have mapped the atrophic signature that distinguishes Alzheimer's disease (AD), isolating regions differentially vulnerable to its age-dependent neurodegenerative process. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Active PTB was associated with widespread transcriptional remodeling, with 1,389 dysregulated genes organized into 16 PTB-associated co-expression modules. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressively characterized neurodegenerative condition marked by molecular instability, neuronal dysfunction and abnormal tau buildup. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multi-subject spatial transcriptomics is increasingly used to identify molecular differences across individuals and conditions while resolving where in tissue those differences occur. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and glioblastoma (GBM) share common aging-related risk factors, they lead to opposite cellular fates—neurodegeneration versus uncontrolled proliferation. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Single-nucleus RNA-seq (snRNA-seq) studies of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) routinely filter nuclei by mitochondrial percentage (%MT) or remove mitochondrial genes, yet whether these reads carry information about cognition is rarely examined. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This structural configuration shields the scaffold from calpain-mediated cleavage, reconfiguring FLNA into an active motility engine driving invasive lamellipodia but stalls proteolytic processing and forces an absolute loss of the nuclear FLNA-90 tumor-suppressor brake, unleashing uninhibited c-Myc oncogenic transcription. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sulforaphane (SFN), a natural isothiocyanate from cruciferous vegetables, exerts neuroprotective effects through mechanisms extending beyond canonical Nrf2/ARE activation. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For a long time, the protein coding potential of our genome was underestimated. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Computational drug repurposing commonly relies on transcriptomic signature matching to identify compounds that reverse disease-associated gene expression, but such approaches do not distinguish putative causal drivers from downstream consequences of disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive, neurodegenerative disorder and the leading cause of dementia worldwide. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vascular pathology is an important contributor to dementia, and astrocyte dysfunction is increasingly recognized as a key mediator of cerebrovascular injury. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In spatial proteomics across large cohorts, downstream estimates from tens of thousands of images depend on accurate cell segmentation. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Butyrate, a 4-carbon fatty acid produced from insoluble starch by the gut microbiome, plays key roles in mitochondrial respiration, activation of cell-surface G-protein-coupled receptors, and protein acetylation by inhibiting histone deacetylases (HDACs). 1 key finding →
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
Late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) risk is strongly influenced by genetic factors such as the presence of the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (referred to here as APOE4), as well as non-genetic determinants including ageing. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
- Randomised / 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
- Multi-centre 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.
1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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 →