We introduce a special issue of the Journal of Neuropsychology dedicated to a recent paradigm shift in Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Neurodegenerative dementias and related diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson's disease have no fundamental cure yet. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterised by amyloid-β (Aβ), tau hyperphosphorylation and neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved a blood-based biomarker to confirm diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD-BBMs). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are currently the only clinically validated biofluid diagnostic test for Alzheimer's Disease (AD) available in Australia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nineteen nonamnestic autopsied cases with relevant CSF values were included. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The synaptic proteins revealed no statistically significant differences between BD and HC, neither at baseline, one-year follow-up, or in terms of changes from baseline to follow-up. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers can directly reflect physiological and pathological changes within the central nervous system, serving as a critical element in the preliminary diagnosis and disease monitoring of central nervous system disorders. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CSF Aβ1-42 was higher in the T2DM group than the nondiabetic group. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CSF-NEP was significantly inversely associated with CSF-Aβ42 and positively with the extent of neuronal injury as measured by CSF-tau and FDG-PET. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The annual number of health insurance claims for p-tau181 testing gradually increased from 1358 (2014) to 3420 (2023); 79-86% of claims were from inpatient settings throughout the study period. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This article presents recommendations, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, for the clinical application of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β1-42, tau, and phosphorylated tau in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In EDAR and DESCRIPA test data, inclusion of a case/control PGRS was no more predictive of Aβ, and a combined Aβ and tau endpoint than the basic models (accuracies of 66.0%, and 73.3% respectively). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater daytime sleepiness was associated with higher CSF indicators of amyloid deposition in female patients. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive testing is an essential part of clinical diagnostics and clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Digital biomarkers are of growing interest in the field of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) research. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With the global population rapidly aging, dementia has emerged as a major public health concern. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia poses a significant global health problem, necessitating early detection for effective intervention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We comment on the importance of the novel tablet-based screening tool for cognitive decline recently studied in Nigeria by Ogbuagu et al. TabCAT-BHA was administered on an iPad in urban and rural settings and was found to be a sensitive and culturally appropriate tool for assessing cognitive function and impairment. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As our knowledge about the biology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) expands and we recognize the significance of early intervention for effective treatment, there is a shift in focus toward detecting the disease at an early stage. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
43/100
In this commentary I consider the issues raised in Schneider and Goldberg's review of composite cognitive and functional measures. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The DCR scaled well with FAQ scores, and ML classifiers trained on multimodal DCR features demonstrated strong performance in predicting functional impairment on a held-out test set. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The advent of disease-modifying treatments and risk-reduction strategies in the clinic have increased the demand for biomarkers for early disease detection, prediction of clinical course of disease, individual risk prediction and monitoring of treatment effects. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two major themes were identified: (1) facilitating factors and (2) difficulties related to use. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 2nd SAMS score were higher than the 1st SAMS score in some participants, on the other hand, the intraclass correlation coefficient was good. 5 key findings →
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 (3.7% 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 →