The mean age was 66 years (65.53 ± 9.31), and 51 (67.1%) participants being female. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Based on a structured search on the ClinicalTrials.gov and the EudraCT databases, we identified 13 clinical trials testing 11 different approved anticancer agents (five tyrosine kinase inhibitors, two retinoid X receptor agonists, two immunomodulatory agents, one histone deacetylase inhibitor, and one monoclonal antibody) in the AD continuum. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aβ-PET was abnormal in 81 participants from J-TRC and 71 participants from BioFINDER. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 474 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both intervention and control groups showed cognitive improvement over 24 weeks, with greater gains in the intervention arm. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In amyloid-negative cognitively unimpaired subjects, ApoE4 status influenced both baseline levels and rate of change of plasma p-tau217. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 151 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
69/100
In TAP-TAU, we will investigate the added clinical value of tau-PET in a real-world clinical setting, including memory clinic patients with diagnostic uncertainty after routine work-up. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Women showed higher tau load and stronger association between amyloid and tau than men. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 249 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pharmacological interventions have beneficial effects on cognition, function, and global changes, but not on neuropsychiatric symptoms, through current network meta-analysis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline plasma GFAP could detect abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 and CSF Aβ42/T-tau with an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.86) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.86), respectively. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Brain volume analyses included 622 participants (mean age ± SD: 70.9 ± 10.2) with an average of 3.3 MRI scans over 4.7 years. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 622 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In participants who progressed to amyloid-positive MCI, plasma p-tau181/Aβ42 and GFAP diverged from stable controls earliest (about 13 and 12 years before symptom onset, respectively), followed by Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, and NfL, all of which became abnormal before symptom onset. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
53/310 (17.1%) subjects were classified as Focal-FMM. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 310 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
Additionally, our results indicate that AD subjects carrying APOE ε4 are more responsive to the neuroprotective effects of physical activity. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The SCIENCe study confirms that SCD is a heterogeneous group, with preclinical AD and subthreshold psychiatric features. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 114 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall estimates of the treatment effect were calculated by using a fixed-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured by using a standard chi-squared statistic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of PRSs may be beneficial for increased precision in risk estimates among APOE4 carriers. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 712 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the limited longitudinal data at the individual level and the high variability observed in such data, the study elucidates the link between the long asynchronous pathophysiological processes and the preclinical and clinical stages of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,014 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive and neuropsychological scores differed significantly among the groups, with descending performance among CN>SCD>MCI>AD. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 128 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
We found low intra-individual variability, robust to various factors, appropriate to capture individual changes in AD BBMs, while moderate inter-individual variability may give rise to caution in diagnostic contexts. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings offer novel perspectives to the design of AD clinical trials and aid in understanding the tau accumulation inside and outside MTL in AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 143 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Previous brain-autopsy findings suggest that the myelin levels-which differ substantially between white matter tracts in the brain-are a key modulating factor of region-specific susceptibility to tau deposition. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 275 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The site and rate of atrophy are different across the tau-PET patterns. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 366 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although the participants with EOAD showed a faster decline in ADAS-Cog, had a longer duration of AD before diagnosis, and had a higher frequency of two APOE ε4 alleles than those with LOAD, the cognitive and global responses to ChEI treatment and the longitudinal outcomes after 3 years were similar between the age-at-onset groups. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,017 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We investigated the effect of crenezumab, a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) immunoglobulin (Ig)G4 monoclonal antibody, on biomarkers of amyloid pathology, neurodegeneration, and disease progression in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The maximal tolerated dose of PQ912 has been identified and the results support future studies at still lower doses reaching > 50% target occupancy, a longer up-titration phase to potentially induce adaptation and longer treatment periods to confirm the early signals of efficacy as seen in this study. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial 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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 32,180 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.
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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated