NULISA plasma biomarkers revealed disease-specific protein patterns. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 194 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Over a maximum follow-up of 26 years, the median time to event was 1·2 years (IQR 0·2-3·3) in the delirium group and 1·3 years (0·3-3·6) in the control group. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 909 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 929 patients, 184 (20%) experienced POD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 929 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We determined the demographics and social drivers of health associated with utilization and initial adherence of these medications. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,198,362 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ObjectivesIdentifying modifiable factors that shape cognitive aging trajectories is a central goal in aging research. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,140 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Given the inconsistent evidence regarding hearing aid use and reduced dementia risk, this study evaluates whether hearing aid use, particularly effective use, is associated with lower probable dementia risk among hearing-impaired older adults. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 61,089 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APPLE-Tree has a high probability of being cost-effective for a 1-point NTB gain, a difference previously associated with a three-fold reduction in 5-year dementia risk. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 746 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
61/100
A total of 621 participants (aged 69.9 ± 3.8, 71% female) had available data for the main analyses and 355 had PET Centiloid data available. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 621 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From 2520 records screened, 16 population-based studies were included and 12 contributed to meta-analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mary Poppins famously asserted that "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down," but this bon mot is likely wrong in almost every way. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 74,148 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) has a strong genetic component, with APOE ε4 being the most established risk factor through its effects on beta-amyloid (Aβ) metabolism and microglial function. 5 key findings →
Participants: 500,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To improve clinical utility, a dual threshold approach was applied to maximize predictive values and positive likelihood ratios while minimizing the proportion of indeterminate results. 5 key findings →
Participants: 208 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 191 participants (57 Black, 46 Hispanic White, 88 non-Hispanic White), age-adjusted plasma p-tau217 and p-tau217/Aβ42 performed similarly in detecting amyloid-positive individuals (≥ 25 Centiloids), regardless of race/ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Participants: 191 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma p-tau217 demonstrated the strongest discrimination of Core1 positivity (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.95) and showed the steepest increase with disease progression. 4 key findings →
Participants: 401 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater MVPA (β = -0.107; p = 0.013) and CRF (β = -0.114; p = 0.027) were associated with lower NfL, but not Aβ PET, p-tau217, Aβ1-42/1-40, or GFAP. 4 key findings →
Participants: 648 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid status was determined by CSF in 347 patients (189 positive [54.5%]) and by PET imaging in 152 patients (66 positive [43.4%]). 4 key findings →
Participants: 499 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At a care setting-agnostic cutoff of 0.934 pg/ml, high negative predictive value (NPV) (93.8%) and acceptable positive predictive value (PPV) (46.6%) were observed against amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET). 4 key findings →
Participants: 604 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Previous experimental studies suggested a link between the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene and epilepsy. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The ratio showed excellent separation across genotypes in our cohort. 5 key findings →
Participants: 110 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sleep duration exhibited a U-shaped association with SPARE-AD (p = 0.001), Trail Making Tests A and B, and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (all p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 38,816 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia (FTD) exhibit considerable variability in disease onset and progression. 5 key findings →
Participants: 711 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Social isolation and loneliness are increasingly recognized as detrimental risk factors for brain health. 3 key findings →
Participants: 383,421 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia worldwide, imposes a growing clinical and societal burden, yet no therapies have been proven to alter its progression despite decades of intensive research. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study directly compared four different commercial/lab p-tau217 blood tests (Lumipulse, ALZpath, Johnson & Johnson, and NULISA) in 344 people from two community cohorts, most of whom were cognitively normal or had only mild changes. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 344 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This randomized clinical trial found that ADRD screening in PC was not associated with improvement in family member health-related quality of life, caregiver preparedness, or caregiving self-efficacy. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,808 Evidence: null result
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →