30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among ambulatory adults with hypertension, treating to a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a goal of less than 140 mm Hg did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of probable dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 4,678 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Observational epidemiological studies have shown a positive association between hypertension and risk of incident dementia; however, the effects of antihypertensive therapy on cognitive function in controlled trials have been conflicting, and meta-analyses of the trials have not provided clear evidence of whether antihypertensive treatment reduces dementia incidence. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,687 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Inflammatory mechanisms have been implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and might be mediated via the COX-2 enzyme. 3 key findings →
Participants: 725 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study showed that flutemetamol injection labeled with radioactive fluorine 18 was safe and had high sensitivity and specificity in an end-of-life population. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 176 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with the usual care clinics (12-month incidence, 213 of 1724 [12.4%]), the odds of an incident ADRD diagnosis were higher in the clinics randomized to QDRS plus PDM (12-month incidence, 355 of 2301 [15.4%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.64) but not the clinics randomized to PDM only (12-month incidence, 134 of 1300 [10.3%]; AOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63-1.11]). 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 5,325 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
81 participants with probable Alzheimer's disease and 69 healthy controls were assessed. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 81 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of more than 50 articles identified, the overwhelming majority did not meet inclusion criteria, primarily because of lack of clear diagnoses of dementia and AD. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 212 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Non-pharmacological therapies, such as physical activity interventions, are an appealing alternative or add-on to current pharmacological treatment of cognitive symptoms in patients with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 802 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The trial was completed by 67% of patients in the placebo group and 73% of patients in the risperidone group. 3 key findings →
Participants: 345 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 9,361 randomized participants, 7,221 (77%) were eligible to be re-contacted. 5 key findings →
Participants: 248 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The current study is a controlled clinical investigation of two nonpharmacological treatments of depression in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This randomized clinical trial found that ADRD screening in PC was not associated with improvement in family member health-related quality of life, caregiver preparedness, or caregiving self-efficacy. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,808 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in elderly people. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Neuroimaging and biofluid tau markers hold potential for optimising such clinical trials by augmenting participant selection, providing evidence of target engagement, and monitoring treatment efficacy. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with MCI had a predominant memory impairment with relative sparing of other cognitive domains and were intermediate between clinically normal individuals and patients with AD on cognitive and functional ratings. 3 key findings →
Participants: 769 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to increased rates of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The AD drug development pipeline has 105 agents divided among phase I, phase II, and phase III. 2 key findings →
Participants: 54,073 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At baseline, there were 126 participants (106 [84.1%] women); mean (SD) age was 44.13 (12.71) years, mean years of interpreting experience was 8.57 (8.48) years, and 106 of 120 (88.3%) lived in an urban area. 5 key findings →
Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ACoE's overall cognitive assessments were significantly reliable (ICC [intraclass correlation coefficient]=0.89; P<.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 35 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Little is known about whether cognitive assessments can be completed remotely by older adults at risk for dementia, and there is no consensus on which tool is best. 1 key finding →
Participants: 52 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91; P<.001). 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundScreening for cognitive function, using tests such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), is the first step in detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 940 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Efficient screening tools for cognitive decline and dementia are in high demand. 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