30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Use of VR in hospitalized patients significantly reduces pain versus a control distraction condition. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prediction algorithms are a first but promising step toward providing specific prognoses to patients, families, and practitioners. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 236 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We determined the frequency of dementia in a cohort of 251 patients aged greater than or equal to 60 years hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke, based on examinations performed 3 months after stroke onset. 5 key findings →
Participants: 251 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There are specific risk factors associated with feeding tube placement in nursing home residents with severe cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 2935 patients (50.4% women; mean age=72.2 years; 19.8% subjective cognitive impairment, 39.8% mild cognitive impairment, and 40.4% dementia), larger WMH volume within projection fibres (B=0.24, SE=0.10, p=0.013) was associated with greater apathy. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,935 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among patients with ischemic stroke, factors identifiable within hours of hospital presentation predicted mortality risk at 30 days and 1 year. 1 key finding →
Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although internal factors explain most about the poor nutritional status of aged residents in nursing homes, the factors related to nutritional care need further investigation to clarify their role in maintaining the nutritional status of aged residents. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Stroke is considered the second most common cause of dementia, but the magnitude of the risk posed by stroke has not been fully clarified. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Design review and abstraction of medical records and computerized data bases from 5986 members, aged 65 years and older, of a large health maintenance organization in northern California. 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Atrial fibrillation already accounts for a significant amount of National Health Service (NHS) funding, and over the coming years is highly likely to impose a growing cost on NHS budgets and the wider UK healthcare system. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients in this study were from the China Stroke Center Alliance database. 5 key findings →
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 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.
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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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