31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Individuals with early AD show heterogeneity in disease progression, which increases when stratifying on risk factors associated with progression. 3 key findings →
Participants: 302 Evidence: low
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
Delirium and dementia are two of the most common causes of cognitive impairment in older populations, yet their interrelation remains poorly understood. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Olfactory impairment at baseline was strongly associated with 5-year incidence of cognitive impairment as measured using the MMSE. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease most often associated with memory deficits and cognitive decline, although less common clinical presentations are increasingly recognized. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Structural imaging based on magnetic resonance is an integral part of the clinical assessment of patients with suspected Alzheimer dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia worldwide, with the prevalence continuing to grow in part because of the aging world population. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study confirms previous "guestimates" of the number of younger people affected by dementia in UK. 2 key findings →
Participants: 567,500 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Depression was the most common psychiatric diagnosis in all groups. 2 key findings →
Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With advances in knowledge disease, boundaries may change. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To assess the value of exosomal miRNAs as biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD), the expression of microRNAs was measured in a plasma fraction enriched in exosomes by differential centrifugation, using Illumina deep sequencing. 4 key findings →
Participants: 35 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The commonly used criteria for diagnosis can differ by a factor of 10 in the number of subjects classified as having dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DCTclock discriminates between diagnostic groups and improves upon traditional cognitive tests for detecting biomarkers of amyloid and tau pathology in CN older adults. 3 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CSF tau and 18 F-AV-1451 have equal performance in early clinical stages of AD, but 18 F-AV-1451 is superior in the dementia stage, and exhibits close to perfect diagnostic performance for mild to moderate AD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among dementia-like diseases, Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) are two of the most frequent. 2 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Semantic dementia is distinguishable from other presentations of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease, not only by fluent speech and impaired comprehension without loss of episodic memory, syntax, and phonology but also by empty, garrulous speech with thematic perseverations, semantic paraphasias, and poor category fluency. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Reliable noninvasive biomarkers are an unmet clinical need for the diagnosis of NASH. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
135 subjects enrolled in a longitudinal clinicopathologic study were administered the MoCA by a single physician and the MMSE by a trained research assistant. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) needs to be distinguished from Alzheimer's disease (AD) because of important differences in patient management and outcome. 4 key findings →
Participants: 61 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four subtypes emerged: (1) dysnomic (n = 153), (2) dysexecutive (n = 102), (3) amnestic (n = 288), and (4) cluster-derived normal (n = 282) who performed within normal limits on cognitive testing. 4 key findings →
Participants: 153 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Approximately half (54.5%, 35/55) of participants showed a decline in RBMT scores during the 2-year follow-up and were defined as the memory decline group. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 55 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is because of the ambiguity surrounding the terminology used to characterize reversible dementia—the variation in the population being studied, or the existence of subclinical instances that are difficult to diagnose.[3] By and large however, the proportion of reversible dementias compared to the irreversible dementias is very low. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
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
SB-C significantly differentiated cognitively unimpaired and impaired groups (P < 0.001), correlated with standard cognitive measures, and showed moderate-to-high area under the curve (0.56-0.82) for classifying biomarker positivity, with strongest results in BioFINDER-Primary Care. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 736 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau231 were most effective in diagnosing aMCI/AD (AUC = 0.95 and 0.93, respectively), while p-tau217, p-tau231 and p-tau181 presented the best differential diagnosis for AD from PSP, FTD and DLB respectively (AUC = 0.84, 0.81 and 0.83). α-synuclein was presented as the best biomarker for PSP variant and behavior variant FTD subtypes (AUC = 0.81 and 0.74, respectively). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 668 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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