28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We performed a systematic review of studies focusing on the automatic prediction of the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, and a quantitative analysis of the methodological choices impacting performance. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
While emerging evidence suggests that neuroinflammation plays a crucial role in Alzheimer's disease, the impact of the microglia response in Alzheimer's disease remains a matter of debate. 4 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher baseline p-tau181 and NfL were associated with significantly faster decline in most cognitive, physical, and functional outcomes (+1 SD p-tau181: β MMSE = -0.055, 95% CI -0.067 to -0.043, β FCSRT = -0.034, 95% CI -0.043 to -0.025, β fluency = -0.029, 95% CI -0.038 to -0.020, β SPPB = -0.040, 95% CI -0.057 to -0.022, and β 4IADL = -0.115, 95% CI 0.091-0.140. +1 SD NfL: β MMSE = -0.039, 95% CI -0.053 to -0.025, β FCSRT = -0.022, 95% CI -0.032 to -0.012, β fluency = -0.014, 95% CI -0.024 to -0.004, and β 4IADL = 0.077, 95% CI 0.048-0.105). 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,938 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AV45 PET scans were performed in 271 individuals and preliminary results showed that 38.0% had a cortical SUVR > 1.17, which gave an indication of significant brain amyloïd deposit. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The amyloid β subgroups did not differ for any psychobehavioural, cognitive, actigraphy, and structural and functional neuroimaging results after adjustment for age, sex, and level of education More participants positive for amyloid β deposition had the APOE ε4 allele (33 [38%] vs 29 [13%], p 1-42 concentration in CSF significantly correlated with mean 18 F-florbetapir uptake at baseline (r=-0·62, p 1-42 to amyloid β 1-40 (r=-0·61, p 18 F-florbetapir uptake at baseline (mean standard uptake value ratio 1·46 [SD 0·16] vs 1·02 [SD 0·20]), and more were carriers of the APOE ε4 allele (three [75%] of four vs 33 [39%] of 83). 1 key finding →
Participants: 318 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Current models of progression in neurodegenerative diseases use neuroimaging measures that are averaged across pre-defined regions of interest (ROIs). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant improvement in mental flexibility and planning abilities was observed in both groups (as measured by the Zoo planning test), but no other neuropsychological tests showed improvement. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results indicate the potential value of vocal analytics and the use of a mobile application for accurate automatic differentiation between SCI, MCI and AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These findings reinforce the usability of speech as a reliable biomarker in the detection and assessment of apathy. 3 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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.
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 28,180 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →