31,380 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
Differential diagnosis of dementia remains a challenge in neurology due to symptom overlap across etiologies, yet it is crucial for formulating early, personalized management strategies. 1 key finding →
Participants: 51,269 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) detects functional connectivity (FC) abnormalities that occur in the brains of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results revealed machine learning with novel biomarkers and multiple variables may increase the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with PWOH, PWH were at 58% higher risk for dementia despite HIV treatment with ART. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,381 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These findings suggest that machine learning algorithms could accurately predict incident dementia within 2 years in patients receiving care at memory clinics using only 6 variables. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 307 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Men, racial and ethnic minority individuals, older adults, and those with language barriers are at increased risk for undertreatment of depression. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early diagnosis of cognitive disorders in older adults is a major healthcare priority with benefits to patients, families, and health systems. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite improvements in diagnostic criteria for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the ability to discriminate DLB from Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias remains suboptimal. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A fully automated computational approach included classical statistical methods, support vector machine procedures, and machine learning techniques (random forest and sequential feature selection procedures). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,794 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Comparisons of ADNC in typical amnestic versus atypical aphasic dementia and of TDP in type A versus type C revealed fundamental biological and clinical differences, suggesting that members of each pair may constitute distinct clinicopathologic entities despite identical downstream proteinopathies. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Digital cognitive tests showed good performances for MCI and dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 56 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The dementia population is increasing as the world's population is growing older. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Electroacupuncture was an effective treatment for MCI patients by improving cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 103 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DCR outperforms the MMSE in detecting and classifying cognitive impairment-in a fraction of the time-while being not influenced by a patient's ethnicity. 5 key findings →
Participants: 360 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed increased likelihood of multiple system atrophy versus Lewy body disease and progressive supranuclear palsy if a patient developed orthostatic hypotension or urinary incontinence with the requirement for urinary catheters [multiple system atrophy versus Lewy body disease: odds ratio (OR): 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-3.7, P = 0.021; multiple system atrophy versus progressive supranuclear palsy: OR: 11.2, 95% CI: 3.2-39.2, P < 0.01]. 2 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It shows no scale bias compared to SAGE. 1 key finding →
Participants: 426 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In sum, we present a diagnostic tool for MCI and AD trained using baseline scans and a follow-up diagnosis regardless of progression, which is multi-diagnostic, generalizable across independent data sources and acquisition protocols, and with transparently reported performance. 5 key findings →
Participants: 570 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) presents a significant challenge in neurodegenerative research and clinical practice due to its complex etiology and progressive nature. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
There has been recent interest in the application of machine learning techniques to neuroimaging-based diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
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 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