The epsilon4 allele of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene confers an increased risk for the development of AD. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study 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.
Despite the theoretical rationale for the superiority of entorhinal measurements in early AD, the authors found MRI measurements of the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex were approximately equivalent at intergroup discrimination. 2 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Assessments of hippocampal volume and shape derived from HDBM may be useful in distinguishing early DAT from healthy aging. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings are consistent with smaller left hippocampal volume in depression. 4 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the mature brain, chronic alcohol use disorders are associated with graded global brain dysmorphology. 3 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study compared a fornix cross-sectional-area measurement and hippocampal volume in 86 traumatic brain injury (TBI) subjects with 46 normal controls. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Atrophy of the hippocampal formation, a region important for the acquisition of new declarative knowledge, has been well-documented in Alzheimer's disease (AD), although the relation of such atrophy to the extent of memory dysfunction in these patients has been less clear. 1 key finding →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Within the medial temporal lobe, both the hippocampus and amygdala are frequently targeted by researchers and clinicians for volumetric analysis based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results of our study indicate no reduction in the volume of the hippocampus in patients with major depression. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Children born preterm and of very low birth weight have an increased incidence of learning difficulties, but little is known about the specific nature of their cognitive deficits and the underlying neuropathology. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Structural MRIs of the brains of humans with extensive navigation experience, licensed London taxi drivers, were analyzed and compared with those of control subjects who did not drive taxis. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An extensive literature stretching back decades has shown that prolonged stress or prolonged exposure to glucocorticoids-the adrenal steroids secreted during stress-can have adverse effects on the rodent hippocampus. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
A number of studies indicate that prolonged, major depression is associated with a selective loss of hippocampal volume that persists long after the depression has resolved. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For 11 AD cases and four normal elderly controls, post mortem volumes of the hippocampal subdivisions were calculated by using magnetic resonance imaging and histological sections. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
Using quantitative structural MRI protocols, we examined the effects of age on alterations in entorhinal cortex (EC) volume. 3 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 →