Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug developments and clinical trials (CT) remain vulnerable to problems that undermine research validity. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Studies of amyloid precursor protein transgenic mice suggest that immune responses to amyloid beta peptide (Abeta) may be instrumental in the removal of plaques from the brain, but the initial clinical trial of an Abeta vaccine in patients with Alzheimer s disease (AD) was halted as the result of serious neurological complications in some patients. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MAP-RTAP (AUC = 0.78) and pTau/Aβ42 (AUC = 0.76) were the best performing individual biomarkers. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After adjusting for demographics, socioeconomics, health care access and utilization, comorbidities, and service year, we found that anti-dementia medication use was approximately 30% higher among non-Hispanic Whites compared to other racial/ethnic groups (PR=0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.59, 0.91). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On March 12–14, 2024, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) together with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) led a workshop exploring clinically meaningful changes in the context of Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) clinical trials ( https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dbsr/workshops/clinically‐meaningful‐outcomes‐ad‐adrd‐trials ). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) is associated with a high incidence of Alzheimer disease and with deficits in cholinergic function in humans. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It is hypothesized that Alzheimer's disease is a human phylogenetic disease which has a common multifactorial pathogenesis in sporadic and familial cases and in Down syndrome, related to a genomic character function G(x). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Genetic and other defects leading to brain changes in Down syndrome, Alzheimer disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, Gaucher disease, hypertension and other disorders are rapidly being identified. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Frequencies of chromatid aberrations in response to G2-phase x-irradiation were compared in PHA-stimulated blood lymphocytes from healthy control subjects, Down syndrome (DS) patients, and Alzheimer disease (AD) patients. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
33/100
To determine if impaired dichotic performance in patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type is due to the inability to divide attention or the inability to perceive degraded auditory stimuli, we measured performance on tasks of both dichotic and degraded monotic speech materials. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Digital and palmar dermatoglyphics were examined in 29 men and 27 women with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) and 112 age-, sex-, and racial group-matched controls. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Overall, these numbers amount to a goal of approximately 1,300 physician faculty members in clinical departments and 1,300 other faculty for all of our nation's medical schools. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
31/100
That word allows us to occupy the high moral ground but to no avail. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
BackgroundPathogenic variants in GCH1 have been associated with Parkinsons disease (PD), but the clinical phenotype and longitudinal disease course of GCH1-associated PD remain incompletely characterized. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22,825 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
INTRODUCTIONDetermining whether plasma biomarkers are preferentially associated with Alzheimers disease (AD)-related rather than age-related brain atrophy patterns may clarify their prognostic and diagnostic clinical use. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
IntroductionFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a devastating disease that commonly results in early onset dementia, yet its rarity and heterogeneity limit large-scale research and clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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 →