Dominant mutations in two DNA/RNA binding proteins, TDP-43 and FUS/TLS, are causes of inherited Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Neuroinflammation is a pathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and microglia, the brain's resident phagocyte, are pivotal for the immune response observed in AD. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Secretases are a group of proteases that are major drug targets considered for the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Retinal neurodegeneration and visual dysfunctions have been reported in a majority of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients, and, in light of the quest for novel biomarkers for these neurodegenerative proteinopathies, the retina has been receiving increasing attention as an organ for diagnosing, monitoring, and understanding disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous genetic risk variants for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The gut microbiome - the largest reservoir of microorganisms of the human body - is emerging as an important player in neurodevelopment and ageing as well as in brain diseases including stroke, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In neurons, autophagy is crucial to proper axon guidance, vesicular release, dendritic spine architecture, spine pruning and synaptic plasticity and, when dysregulated, is associated with brain disorders, including autism spectrum disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Morphological changes of dendritic spines are strongly associated with synaptic development and synaptic plasticity, which underlies learning and memory. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neuronal signaling depends on the exocytic fusion and subsequent endocytic retrieval and reformation of neurotransmitter-containing synaptic vesicles at synapses. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) has a very strong genetic component, whose characterization has become an essential part of efforts to understand the pathophysiological processes of the disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent genome-wide association studies implicate microglia in Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis; however, their biological significance remains poorly understood. 1 key finding →
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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