27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Comorbid cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors (CVM) differentially impact brain structure and increase dementia risk, but their specific magnetic resonance imaging signatures (MRI) remain poorly characterized. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 37,096 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most approaches to machine learning from electronic health data can only predict a single endpoint. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,909 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
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
For detecting AD-dementia, the ensemble model achieved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.943 (95% confidence interval, 0.906-0.980), 0.786 (95% confidence interval, 0.673-0.899), and 0.795 (95% confidence interval, 0.716-0.874) in the internal validation, External-1, and External-2, respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The optimized XGBoost model demonstrated superior performance, achieving an AUC of 0.85. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia, faces challenges in terms of understanding the cause, monitoring the pathogenesis, and developing early diagnoses and effective treatments. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
New personalized endpoints that are clinically meaningful to individuals and their families should be developed. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighteen of 24 participants completed the survey and 15 participated in interviews. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
While people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) portray noticeably incipient memory difficulty in remembering events and situations along with problems in decision making, planning, and finding their way in familiar environments, detailed neuropsychological assessments also indicate deficits in language performance. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Addressing disparities related to Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD) is a priority for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a significant increase in the likelihood of AWV uptake among telehealth adopters by 10.2 percentage points (p <0.001) than non-adopters of telehealth in traditional FFS Medicare plans. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The smart device system to monitor tremors and to recognize its phenotypes for better outcomes of deep brain stimulation, applications evaluating fine motor functions, AI integrated electroencephalogram learning to diagnose epilepsy and psychological non-epileptic seizure, predict outcome of seizure surgeries, recognize patterns of autonomic instability to prevent sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), identify the pattern of complex algorithm in neuroimaging classifying cognitive impairment, differentiating and classifying concussion phenotypes, smartwatches monitoring atrial fibrillation to prevent strokes, and prediction of prognosis in dementia are unique examples of experimental utilizations of AI in the field of neurology. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
S100 beta protein, a member of a Ca(2+)-binding protein family present primarily in the nervous system, affects the survival and differentiation of both neurons and glia cells. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our study underscores the role of telehealth in increasing AWV uptake and facilitating cognitive assessments. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
IntroductionFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a devastating disease that commonly results in early onset dementia, yet its rarity and heterogeneity limit large-scale research and clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 567 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →