Fifty-one AD patients enrolled, mean age 73.5. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 1018 study patients enrolled, 508 were randomly assigned to rivastigmine and 510 to placebo; 17.3% of patients on rivastigmine and 21.4% on placebo progressed to AD (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.64-1.12]; p=0.225). 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
69/100
For early detection of Alzheimer's disease, it is important to find biomarkers with predictive value for disease progression and clinical manifestations, such as cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 282 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 52 baseline participants comprised autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease mutation carriers (n = 11; 49.6 ± 10.3 years old) and non-carriers (n = 16; 51.1 ± 14.2 years old; 10 male), and patients with sporadic mild cognitive impairment (n = 17; 61.9 ± 6.4 years old; nine male) and sporadic Alzheimer's disease (n = 8; 63.0 ± 6.5 years old; five male); for confidentiality reasons, the gender of mutation carriers is not revealed. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are being widely sought with a number of studies suggesting blood measures of inflammatory proteins as putative biomarkers. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
55/100
When patients with MCI underwent clinical follow-up, 29 progressed to dementia, while 44 remained stable. 2 key findings →
Participants: 73 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Electrophysiology Professional Interest Area (EPIA) and Global Brain Consortium endorsed recommendations on candidate electroencephalography (EEG) measures for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
[(11)C]PIB retention in the neocortical and subcortical brain regions was significantly higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls. 3 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings confirm that MCI is associated with widespread cortical atrophy. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blood biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are promising for dementia prediction, but their association with progression across intermediate stages of cognitive decline in the general population remains unclear. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The INNO-BIA AlzBio3 selectively and specifically measured Abeta((1-42)), T-TAU, and P-TAU((181P)) in the CSF. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This article presents recommendations, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, for the clinical application of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β 1-42 , tau, and phosphorylated tau in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent findings suggest that Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a disconnection syndrome characterized by abnormalities in large-scale networks. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study 5 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 9 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients underwent respectively 3- and 5-year follow-up positron emission tomography (PET) studies with N-methyl [(11)C] 2-(4-methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxy-benzothiazole ((11)C-PIB) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) to understand the time courses in AD disease processes. 4 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events