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
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
48/100
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
Patterns of cognitive impairment may be detected in cases of AD 2 years before formal clinical diagnosis, although high education level prolongs competence, principally on verbal tasks. 3 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to record brain activation during cognitive testing in older individuals (88±6yo; N = 19) living in residential care communities. 3 key findings →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The lived experience of people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment emphasises the central role of smart devices in their lives, and the need for research to move beyond rehearsal of what is needed to co-production and evaluation of smart technology-based educational interventions. 1 key finding →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study is a rare example that focuses on both groups with SCI and AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This report suggests that GSCT is a viable cognitive screening instrument for both MCI and dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 106 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study highlights the importance of focusing on acceptability and the consumer's perceptions in the development of assistive technology for older adults with cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study demonstrates that the Inbrain CST is a reliable tool for detecting cognitive impairment in cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients with MCI, because it has a high correlation and agreement with CERAD-K. Therefore, the Inbrain CST can be a useful, time-efficient, and cost-effective computer-based cognitive test for individuals at risk for cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 166 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Apathy, a common neuropsychiatric symptom associated with dementia, has a strong impact on patients' and caregivers' quality of life. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use and evaluation of digital biomarkers, objective and quantifiable measures of biology, and health collected through digital devices is growing rapidly. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,290 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
TabCAT-BHA was well accepted and sustained, offering a scalable solution for cognitive impairment diagnosis in primary care. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Useful Field of View (UFOV) computerized cognitive training improves older adults' gait speed and balance and reduces dementia risk. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than 50 million people worldwide live with a dementia, and most are cared for by family members. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Contextual memory, the ability to remember spatial or temporal features related to an event, is affected in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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