Schizophrenia is associated with a bilateral volumetric reduction of the hippocampus and probably of the amygdala as well. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
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.
A statistically significant yearly decline in hippocampal volume and an increase in temporal horn volume was identified in elderly control subjects who represent typical aging individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Brain imaging techniques have the potential to characterize neurobiological changes that precede the onset of cognitive impairment in persons at risk for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In patients with cryptogenic epilepsy, recurrent seizures may cause damage to the hippocampus throughout the lifetime of the patient. 1 key finding →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A variety of anatomic and functional neuroimaging findings are associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 62 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The amygdala is a key structure in the brain's integration of emotional meaning with perception and experience. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Measurement of regional abnormalities of HT2 along the length of the hippocampus provides further refinement to the MRI assessment of the hippocampi in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy and is complementary to volumetric and morphological data. 1 key finding →
Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Elevated glucocorticoid levels produce hippocampal dysfunction and correlate with individual deficits in spatial learning in aged rats. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ts65Dn mouse displays a partial triplication of chromosome 16 and is adopted as a model for Down syndrome (DS). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Theories of the pathophysiology of schizophrenia have implicated the hippocampus, but controversy remains regarding hippocampal abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delayed memory impairments and medial temporal-lobe atrophy are considered to be cardinal features of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results provide some support for the lateralised model of material specific memory deficits, but suggest that a number of demographic and epilepsy-related factors may interact with the extent and laterality of hippocampal pathology in shaping the nature of the associated neuropsychological deficit. 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 →