53/310 (17.1%) subjects were classified as Focal-FMM. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 310 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Progressive tau accumulation may be more prominent in ε4 carriers, particularly in the medial and lateral temporal cortices. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 272 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
64/100
Cortical tau accumulation is a key pathological event that partly defines Alzheimer's disease (AD) onset and is associated with cognitive decline and future disease progression. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 59 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Across different tau biomarker groups, the proportion of participants with a discordant profile varied (plasma+/CSF- 15.6%, plasma-/CSF+ 15.3%, plasma+/PET- 22.4%, and plasma-/PET+ 6.1%). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
60/100
The FBB threshold based on the young sample (1.08; 18 CL) was consistent with that of the data-driven approach (1.10; 21 CL), and the existing FBP threshold converted to CL with the derived transformation (1.11; 20 CL). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hyperspectral data and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness data were used in a linear discriminant classification model to discriminate between AD patients and controls. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Differential FTP-PET signal patterns showed significant negative associations with domain-specific annual rates of decline. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The SVCI group showed lower CD in the temporal quadrant of the RPC network compared to the CN group (mean (SD), 42.34 (6.29) vs 48.45 (7.08); p = 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Percentage of visually tau-positive scans increased with amyloid-beta deposition measured in 18F-florbetaben Centiloids (CL) (7.7% (<36 CL), 80% (>83 CL)). 18F-PI-2620 standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) was correlated with increased 18F-florbetaben CL in several regions of interest. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 74 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
Both MRI-based and CT-based rdcCL scales showed that FMM and FBB were highly correlated with each other, globally and regionally (R2 = 0.96~0.99). 5 key findings →
Participants: 63 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All Centiloid cut-offs fell within the range of 25-35, except for CSF Aβ42 that rendered an optimal cut-off value of 12 CL. 5 key findings →
Participants: 205 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SUVR using the whole cerebellum as the reference region and centiloid (CL) cutoffs for early and established amyloid pathology were 1.10 (13.5 CL) and 1.24 (35.7 CL), respectively. 5 key findings →
Participants: 287 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
[18F]flutemetamol PET scans were positive in 133 out of 211 (63%) patients, of whom 110 out of 144 (76%) patients had a pre-PET Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis and 23 out of 67 (34%) patients had a non-AD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 211 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Regional binding of 3 H-THK5117 and 3 H-THK5351 was similar, except in the temporal cortex, which showed higher 3 H-THK5117 binding. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This evaluation shows an [ 18 F]MK-6240 distribution in concordance with postmortem studies and that simplified quantitative approaches such as the SUVR offer valid estimates of neurofibrillary tangle load 90 min post injection. [ 18 F]MK-6240 is a promising tau tracer with the potential to be applied in the disease diagnosis and assessment of therapeutic interventions. 2 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Previous work indicates that resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is sensitive to functional brain changes related to Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology across the clinical spectrum. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Microtubule-associated protein tau encoded by the MAPT gene binds to microtubules and is important for maintaining neuronal morphology and function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
FTP and thickness were differentially related to cognitive performance in several domains. 5 key findings →
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 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.
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 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 →