27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Deep learning, a state-of-the-art machine learning approach, has shown outstanding performance over traditional machine learning in identifying intricate structures in complex high-dimensional data, especially in the domain of computer vision. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The literature has several methodological limitations including lack of sufficient algorithm development descriptions and standard definitions. 1 key finding →
Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We performed a systematic review of studies focusing on the automatic prediction of the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, and a quantitative analysis of the methodological choices impacting performance. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For effective treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to identify subjects who are most likely to exhibit rapid cognitive decline. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although the performance of the different methods still has room for improvement, the results are promising and this methodology has a great potential as a support tool for clinicians and healthcare professionals. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hearing impairment in older adults is independently associated in longitudinal studies with accelerated cognitive decline and incident dementia, and in cross-sectional studies, with reduced volumes in the auditory cortex. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Comorbid cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors (CVM) differentially impact brain structure and increase dementia risk, but their specific magnetic resonance imaging signatures (MRI) remain poorly characterized. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 37,096 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is regarded as the first clinical manifestation in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The synthesized evidence is paramount to developing sophisticated AI approaches to reliably capture and quantify multiple subtle MRI changes in the whole brain that exemplify the complexity and heterogeneity of AD and brain aging. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Combining multi-modality brain data for disease diagnosis commonly leads to improved performance. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Changes in the properties of DTI may be the potential mechanism of WMH-related MCI, especially the right IFOF and the right ILF, which may become imaging markers for predicting WMH-related cognitive dysfunction. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The structure and integrity of the ageing brain is interchangeably linked to physical health, and cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRs) are associated with dementia and other brain disorders. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our study demonstrates that MRI, a widespread imaging technology, can individually identify bvFTD with high accuracy in multi-center imaging data, paving the road to personalized diagnostic approaches in the future. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We report the clinical, neuroimaging, and neuropathologic features of progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA), a rare neurodegenerative syndrome most notable for its distinct language disturbance. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Brain aging is accompanied by patterns of functional and structural change. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is one of the leading causes of death in developed countries. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Clinical data alone poorly predicted phenoconversion in RBD due to synucleinopathy patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 173 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The discovery cohort contained 3,671 individuals with a mean age of 68 years and consisted of 49% reported female. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,671 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Pet robot intervention (PRI) for people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Baseline NPS, categorized for MBI domain and duration, have prognostic utility in addition to brain morphology measures for predicting diagnosis change using ML. 2 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the present study, our automated classifier successfully classified FTD clinical subtypes with good to excellent accuracy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 143 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results suggest that bvFTD may be characterized by an allostatic-interoceptive overload manifested in ongoing electrophysiological markers, brain atrophy, functional networks, and cognition. 4 key findings →
Participants: 94 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Between May 28, 2015, and Jan 10, 2018, 502 individuals were assessed as part of Insight 46. 5 key findings →
Participants: 456 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As a result, our combined method achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC) curve of 98.33, 93.59, 96.83, 94.64, 96.43, and 95.24% for AD vs. MCIs subjects which are high relative to single modality results and other state-of-the-art approaches. 2 key findings →
Participants: 158 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Precision medicine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) necessitates the development of personalized, reproducible, and neuroscientifically interpretable biomarkers, yet despite remarkable advances, few such biomarkers are available. 1 key finding →
Participants: 716 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →