28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This study confirms strong concordance between CSF biomarkers and PET Aβ-amyloid status is independent of immunoassay platform, supporting their utility as biomarkers in clinical practice for the diagnosis of AD and for participant enrichment in clinical trials. 1 key finding →
Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) studies in cognitively normal (CN) older adults age≥65 suggest depression is associated with molecular biomarkers (imaging and cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]). 2 key findings →
Participants: 248 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-β (Aβ) positivity is defined using different biomarkers and different criteria. 3 key findings →
Participants: 368 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Differences observed in technical and diagnostic performance of the two assays may depend on matrix-specific amyloid processing, suggesting that further studies should be carried to standardize amyloid ratio measurement in plasma. 3 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood-based biomarkers have been considered as a promising method for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We aimed to investigate the association of subjective sleep characteristics and plasma Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers in older cognitively unimpaired adults with higher amyloid-β (Aβ) burden. 3 key findings →
Participants: 335 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vitamin D deficiency was common among nursing home residents and strongly associated with dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest that a simple blood-based signature not only provides estimates of NAB but also predicts cognitive decline and disease progression, identifying individuals at risk of progressing toward AD at the prodromal and preclinical stages. 4 key findings →
Participants: 74 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma amyloid beta (Aβ) and tau are emerging as accessible biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than 16 million Americans living with cognitive impairment warrant a diagnostic evaluation to determine the cause of this disorder. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The profile of 10 FIBA-derived peptides combined with age would be a candidate biomarker for AD, which facilitates screening of the disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 157 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) progresses relentlessly from the preclinical to the dementia stage. 5 key findings →
Participants: 206 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest that BAG is potentially a biomarker of pathology in AD which can be applied to routine brain imaging. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This panel of 6 markers in blood serum may indicate underlying neurodegenerative processes in patients with AD at the MCI stage. 3 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The performance characteristics of the Simoa p-Tau 217 assay align with current accuracy recommendations for blood-based biomarker test performance for diagnostic use, making the test suitable for clinical use under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) as a diagnostic plasma test to aid in Alzheimer's diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Understanding relationships between AD-related screening tests and blood biomarkers is a step towards utilization of blood-based biomarker tests as a screening tool for AD, especially in resource-limited regions. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The specific context of use might be considered to define the cut-offs of blood biomarkers of neurodegenerative diseases. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Combining MemTrax Memory Test and blood biomarker results is a promising new technique for the early detection of MCI-AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 101 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA levels were measured with the Nucleic Acid Sequence-Based Amplification (NASBA) assay to determine the relationship with neurological status; 37 subjects with HIV dementia (HIV-D) were compared with 77 with HIV with minor neurological signs (HIV-MCMD) and 93 neurologically normal HIV-seropositive individuals (HIV-NML). 4 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To account for the combined effects on overall precision of CSF samples (fixed effect), different laboratories and analytical runs (random effects), these data were analyzed by mixed-effects modeling with the following results: within center %CV 95% CI values (mean) of 4.0-6.0% (5.3%) for CSF Aβ(1-42); 6.4-6.8% (6.7%) for t-tau and 5.5-18.0% (10.8%) for p-tau(181) and inter-center %CV 95% CI range of 15.9-19.8% (17.9%) for Aβ(1-42), 9.6-15.2% (13.1%) for t-tau and 11.3-18.2% (14.6%) for p-tau(181). 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The suggested revision of the NINCDS-ADRDA criterion for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes at least one abnormal biomarker among magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). 4 key findings →
Participants: 369 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology develops many years before the onset of cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These generally applicable methods establish cutoff values to identify control individuals at increased risk of conversion to mild cognitive impairment which may be useful to people weighing the risk-benefit ratio of new preventive therapeutics and to researchers striving to enrich clinical trial populations with people with latent Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tau is readily transported from the brain to the blood. 2 key findings →
Participants: 303 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More women than men were in the patient group (χ 2 1 =17.2, P<.001) and in the caregiver group (χ 2 1 =22.2, P<.001). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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
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.
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.
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 →