32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Many older adults living with dementia have not been formally diagnosed. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older age is associated with increased HAD in this HIV-1 cohort. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 106 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APOE genotyping does not provide sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be used alone as a diagnostic test for Alzheimer's disease, but when used in combination with clinical criteria, it improves the specificity of the diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,188 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CVR was significantly associated with cognitive performance independently of AD pathology. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Here, we present new criteria aimed to optimize early, sensitive, and specific clinical diagnosis of PSP on the basis of currently available evidence. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The new criteria for AD are presented in three documents. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The critical role of primary care clinicians (PCCs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention, diagnosis and management must evolve as new treatment paradigms and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) emerge. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fit of the models to the data was adequate for general cognitive performance (root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.03; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94; standardised root mean residual (SRMR)=0.05), language (RMSEA=0.02; CFI=0.95; SRMR=0.05) and good for memory (RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02) and executive functioning (RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.98; SRMR=0.03). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,878 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 533 patients with AD at early stages (mean Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 21/30 at entry) were recruited and followed semiannually for up to 13.1 years (mean 3) in five University-based AD centers in the United States and European Union. 4 key findings →
Participants: 533 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study compared individuals whose clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) matched or did not match neuropathologic results at autopsy on clinical and functional outcomes (cognitive impairment, functional status and neuropsychiatric symptoms). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed high levels of missing data in most cognitive test items - on average 13% and as high as 65%. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,755 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are common in dementia and in predementia syndromes such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The rural setting presented unique challenges including: low literacy rates (60.1% of participants had no schooling), diverse language use (primarily Giriama and Swahili), limited infrastructure (e.g., 44.8% of households had electricity), restrictive cultural norms that influenced data collection (e.g., in-home interviews were often conducted outdoors with destructions). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Digital biomarker prognostic models can be a useful tool to assist large-scale population screening for the early detection of cognitive impairment and patient monitoring over time. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical yet challenging, particularly in younger individuals. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 120 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 65 participants (mean age = 79.4 years; women = 54%), 34% had dementia and 32% had CIND. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 65 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia prevalence was 22%, with 35% undiagnosed. 4 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 2,003 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We examined factors associated with self-reported medication nonadherence in well-characterized community-based cohort of older adults. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,164 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Due to rapid population aging, the number of Chileans with dementia is estimated to triple by 2050. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,778 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
TabCAT tests showed good convergent validity with traditional pen-and-paper tests. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These lessons emphasize the importance of ensuring tests are feasible across both high-income countries and LMICs, maintaining consistency within studies and over time, and designing comprehensive cognitive batteries for improved measurement precision of general and domain-specific phenotypes. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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.
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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated