Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is increasing in prevalence, and early detection is essential for timely care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The theta/alpha ratio is a promising but specification-dependent marker of cognitive impairment, contingent particularly on ICA and spectral power quantification. 4 key findings →
Participants: 49 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) develop a genetic form of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) due to an extra copy of chromosome 21, which contains the APP gene. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fairness in clinical machine-learning (ML) remains a critical challenge, particularly in neurodegenerative disease where demographic factors may confound disease-related patterns. 1 key finding →
Participants: 757 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The phenotypic measures “Slope” and “dMMSE/dt” consistently showed strong performance across a range of data distributions, while “Time-to-MMSE10” was particularly effective in cohorts with a higher proportion of individuals experiencing severe cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reported dementia-classification performance depends on how the label is defined, which clinical information the model sees, and whether participants are separated between training and test data. 5 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We compared global and domain-level cognitive performance in older adults without a prior dementia diagnosis based on whether their cohabiting spouse had Alzheimer’s disease. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 350 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
HbA1c levels had warning value for cognitive impairment in non diabetes patients with WMH, and a nonlinear correlation exists between HbA1c and WMH-related cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 497 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Insulin resistance is increasingly recognized as a metabolic factor associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, its relevance to hippocampal structural changes—a key pathological feature of AD—across disease stages is not fully understood. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While loss of NMDA receptors (NMDARs) is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) severity, the effect of sex or the relationship between regional NMDAR density and antemortem cognitive status across the AD spectrum has not been examined. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In dialect-dominant, educationally diverse elderly, Mini-cog provides superior diagnostic accuracy for MCI versus HKBC and MoCA, and comparable accuracy for dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The unsupervised machine learning pipeline successfully identified a composite genetic cluster that emerged as an influential predictor in terms of relative magnitude ( η p 2 ). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
10 of the 1,775 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
- How does Australian primary care face dementia? Identifying current practice and barriers in dementia diagnosis and management in Australian primary care – a qualitative interview study
- Association of Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography With Changes in Diagnosis and Patient Treatment in an Unselected Memory Clinic Cohort: The ABIDE Project
- Plasma p-tau212 antemortem diagnostic performance and prediction of autopsy verification of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology
- Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: third report of the DLB Consortium
- Prevalence and determinants of undetected dementia in the community: a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis
- Clinical utility of office-based cognitive predictors of fitness to drive in persons with dementia: A systematic review
- The Rapid Online Cognitive Assessment for the Detection of Neurocognitive Disorder: Open-Label Study
- Improved accuracy of clinical diagnosis of Lewy body Parkinson's disease
- Screening for cognitive impairment after stroke: A systematic review of psychometric properties and clinical utility
- Diagnostic guidelines in central nervous system Whipple's disease
Where “Free full text” comes from
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
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
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.
- Journal tier up to 10 pts
- Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
- Study design up to 12 pts
- Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
- Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
- How recent up to 5 pts
- Sample size up to 4 pts
- Effect reported up to 3 pts
- Studied in people up to 3 pts
- Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
- Times cited up to 7 pts
- Citations per year up to 5 pts
- Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
- Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
- Still being cited up to 4 pts
- Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
- Institution's track record up to 3 pts
- Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
- Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
- Free to read up to 2 pts
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 27,780 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.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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 →