Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Well-authenticated biomarkers can provide critical insights into the biological basis of Alzheimer disease (AD) to enable timely and accurate diagnosis, estimate future burden and support therapeutic trials. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid PET results were positive for 242 patients (48%). 4 key findings →
Participants: 866 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proposed novel, pragmatic method to determine CSF biomarker cutoffs for AD does not require assessment of other biomarkers or assumptions concerning the clinical diagnosis of patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 497 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Within APOE ε4 carriers, sex differences in CSF p-Tau are more evident in early disease stages, whereas for APOE ε4 noncarriers, sex differences are more evident in advanced disease stages. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,801 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The broad importance of dementia is undisputed, with Alzheimer's disease justifiably getting the most attention. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Key features of this study include the revised diagnostic criteria with improved specificity and sensitivity, an unrestricted age range, and simultaneous assessment of multiple FTLD syndromes. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Synaptic dysfunction is an early event in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis and directly related to cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Whole brain atrophy rate discriminates Alzheimer disease (AD) from MCI. 1 key finding →
Participants: 64 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalence of comorbid conditions in people with dementia is high. 3 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The neuroimaging profile of the C9ORF72 expansion was significantly more symmetrical than progranulin mutations with significantly less temporal lobe involvement than microtubule-associated protein tau mutations. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed increased likelihood of multiple system atrophy versus Lewy body disease and progressive supranuclear palsy if a patient developed orthostatic hypotension or urinary incontinence with the requirement for urinary catheters [multiple system atrophy versus Lewy body disease: odds ratio (OR): 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-3.7, P = 0.021; multiple system atrophy versus progressive supranuclear palsy: OR: 11.2, 95% CI: 3.2-39.2, P < 0.01]. 2 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. 4 key findings →
Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Genetic variants in the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) have been linked to Nasu-Hakola disease, Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and FTD-like syndrome without bone involvement. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
An expanded GGGGCC repeat in C9orf72 is the most common genetic cause of frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MATR3 is an RNA- and DNA-binding protein that interacts with TDP-43, a disease protein linked to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebrospinal fluid and positron emission tomography amyloid-β were measured at baseline in 769 persons [161 healthy controls, 68 subjective memory complaints, 419 mild cognitive impairment and 121 Alzheimer's disease dementia, mean age 72 years (standard deviation 7 years), 47% females] and used to predict diagnosis, APOE ε4 carriage status, cerebral blood flow, cerebrospinal fluid total-tau and phosphorylated-tau levels (cross-sectionally); and hippocampal volume, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography results and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale scores (longitudinally). 2 key findings →
Participants: 769 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The role of microglia in the amyloid cascade of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is debated due to conflicting findings. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Epilepsy has been associated with cognitive impairment and potentially dementia in older individuals. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We analyzed data from 462 ADNI participants without dementia who underwent Aβ ([ 18 F]florbetapir or [ 18 F]florbetaben) and tau ([ 18 F]flortaucipir) PET, structural MRI, and cognitive testing. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
14 IPD-Work studies were assessed and six studies were excluded due to missing outcome data and unavailable data for pooling, resulting in the inclusion of eight studies with 124 909 participants. 5 key findings →
Participants: 909 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The overall PAF for the 14 modifiable risk factors was 59.5% (95% CI = 58.5-60.5). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,949 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
-fold changes of 1.21, 0.57, and 4.63, respectively, compared to A-. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 252 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 1,345 individuals were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,345 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-four reviews were included, published between 2009 and 2023. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →