This study confirms the role of NFL as a biomarker in ALS. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The development of blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology as tools for screening the general population is essential, but persists controversies. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We believe that ours is the largest blood biomarker study of preclinical AD to date. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Astrocytes are the most abundant cell type in the human central nervous system, and they play an important role in the regulation of neuronal physiology. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma markers can track biological change over time, with plasma pTau181 and GFAP markers showing longitudinal change in individuals with preclinical AD. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 373 Evidence: moderate
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
A systematic review to examine the efficacy of computer-based cognitive interventions for cognitively healthy older adults was conducted. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All test batteries exhibited some of the strengths of computerized cognitive testing: standardization of administration and stimulus presentation, accurate measures of response latencies, automated comparison in real time with an individual's prior performance as well as with age-related norms, and efficiencies of staffing and cost. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Conventional neuropsychological assessments for Alzheimer's disease are burdensome and inaccurate at detecting mild cognitive impairment and predicting Alzheimer's disease risk. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 525 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
IR is related to subsequent poorer cognitive performance and greater cognitive decline among patients with cardiovascular disease with and without diabetes. 3 key findings →
Participants: 558 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We initiated the systematic profiling of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex obtained from a subset of autopsied individuals enrolled in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) or the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP), which are jointly designed prospective studies of aging and dementia with detailed, longitudinal cognitive phenotyping during life and a quantitative, structured neuropathologic examination after death. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,090 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In addition to apolipoprotein E (APOE), recent large genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified nine other genes/loci (CR1, BIN1, CLU, PICALM, MS4A4/MS4A6E, CD2AP, CD33, EPHA1 and ABCA7) for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We undertook a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of parental longevity in European descent UK Biobank participants. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,181 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, our analysis revealed a robustly defined age-related co-methylation module that is present in multiple human tissues, including blood and brain. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Oligodendrocyte dysfunction has been implicated in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases, so understanding oligodendrocyte activation states would shed light on disease processes. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
PSMD is a new, fully automated, and robust imaging marker for SVD. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 113 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
Racial/ethnic groups differed in sources of recruitment, reasons for screen failure, and overall probability of eligibility in a preclinical AD trial. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,945 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aβ plaques removal in the brain due to amyloid therapy is strongly correlated with a better clinical response in patients with early Alzheimer's disease and a higher ARIA-E rate for the treatment groups and clinical trials in this meta-analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The positive finding of lower EV Aβ42 supports emerging evidence that plasma neuronal EVs provide an effective platform for demonstrating biomarker responses in clinical trials in AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In patients with moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease, continued treatment with donepezil was associated with cognitive benefits that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference and with significant functional benefits over the course of 12 months. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Because of flawed methods and small clinical benefits, the scientific basis for recommendations of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease is questionable. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease is a neurological disorder that results in cognitive and behavioral impairment. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Larger and better-designed studies are needed to draw unequivocal conclusions about the effect of statins on cognition. 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive activity participation is associated with lower risk of development of amnestic mild cognitive impairment, even after excluding individuals at early stages of dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 58 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Telemedicine is well received among patients and care partners, but successful delivery incorporates support staff and the care partners to navigate technologies. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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