28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Plasma p-tau181 is elevated in patients with ALS, independently from CSF levels, and is firmly associated with LMN dysfunction. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 39 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Currently available assays for sampling plasma ATN biomarkers appear to differentiate between AD patients and controls. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the CU, amyloid-negative (A-) subset, plasma p-tau217 levels increased modestly with age but were unaffected by body mass index and kidney function. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio was decreased in MCI and AD compared to CN, while CSF p-tau181 and t-tau increased. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 430 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study will establish the precision of TAS Test to identify preclinical AD and estimate risk of cognitive decline and AD. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cross-sectionally, CSF sTREM2, YKL-40, clusterin and fractalkine were higher only in groups with tau pathology, independent of amyloidosis (p < 0.001, A+/T+ or N+ and A-/T+ or N+, compared to A-/T-/N-). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 535 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite the limited longitudinal data at the individual level and the high variability observed in such data, the study elucidates the link between the long asynchronous pathophysiological processes and the preclinical and clinical stages of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,014 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive and neuropsychological scores differed significantly among the groups, with descending performance among CN>SCD>MCI>AD. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 128 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This prospective cohort study revealed that plasma NFL may predict longitudinal declines in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 50 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found low intra-individual variability, robust to various factors, appropriate to capture individual changes in AD BBMs, while moderate inter-individual variability may give rise to caution in diagnostic contexts. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The recent development of ultrasensitive technology allows the determination of blood-based biomarkers with high sensitivity, thus facilitating the early detection of AD through the analysis of easily obtained biological samples. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found MTL neurodegeneration largely consistent with existing models, suggesting that harmonized MRI volumetry may be used under conditions that are common in clinical multi-center cohorts. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 206 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These data suggest that apoJ may have potential in the context of use (COU) of AD diagnostics, I-309 may be specifically useful in the COU of identifying individuals at greatest risk for progressing toward AD. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In conjunction with the NILVAD trial, a European Multicentre Double-Blind Placebo Controlled trial of Nilvadipine in Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), there are four NILVAD substudies in which eligible NILVAD patients are also invited to participate. 2 key findings →
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 28,180 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.
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 →