74,396 patients (median age 84, IQR 78-89; 68% female) were analyzed. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 74,396 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
(n = 16,683) had an average age of 69.07 ± 7.34, 72.04% were female, and had an average of 16.66 ± 2.26 years of education. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 16,683 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data collection commenced in November 2023 and finished in July 2024, with the enrollment of 49 older adults with MCI (n=40, 81.6%, assigned to the experimental group [EG] and n=9, 18.4%, to the control group [CG]) conducted from October 2023 to April 2024. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Access to affordable, objective and scalable biomarkers of brain function is needed to transform the healthcare burden of neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disease. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Moreover, we found that more than half of the surveyed papers may have suffered from data leakage and thus reported biased performance. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Brain aging is accompanied by patterns of functional and structural change. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
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
There were 719 respondents (276 people with dementia, 443 carers). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 276 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
DL-ADprob was independently prognostic in both ADNI-MCI (P < .001) and HABS-CU (P = .048) sets. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,050 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a global healthcare challenge lacking a simple and affordable detection method. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,671 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease and the leading cause of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. 4 key findings →
Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our model could aid GPs or health service planners with the early detection of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: case-control study Participants: 93,120 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We report duplication of the APP locus on chromosome 21 in five families with autosomal dominant early-onset Alzheimer disease (ADEOAD) and cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of the 62 caregivers approached, 60 enrolled (96.7%), and 54 completed the study (90% retention). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 172 participants were randomized. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 172 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The discovery cohort contained 3,671 individuals with a mean age of 68 years and consisted of 49% reported female. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,671 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Future studies should prioritize short-term interventions and develop integrated approaches combining individual and group formats. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 750 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Virtual reality environments presented on tablets and smartphones have potential to aid the early diagnosis of conditions such as Alzheimer's dementia by quantifying impairments in navigation performance. 2 key findings →
Participants: 49 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
This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Pet robot intervention (PRI) for people with dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The results were validated in an independent sample of 610 patients with Parkinson's disease from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Parkinson's Disease Biomarker Program (PDBP). 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 423 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
About 245 patients were included and postoperative delirium affected 12.2% (30/245) of the patients. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 245 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is a growing interest in using technology to provide meaningful activities for people living with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregivers reported that digital mental health tools have an overall positive role in their health. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From across this tag
9 of the 1,102 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 9. The same 9 appear here every time.
- Machine-learning based strategy identifies a robust protein biomarker panel for Alzheimer’s disease in cerebrospinal fluid
- Speech digital biomarker combined with fluid biomarkers predict cognitive impairment through machine learning
- Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review
- Multiple Brain Tumor Classification with Dense CNN Architecture Using Brain MRI Images
- Enhanced Deep Learning Framework for Precise MRI ‐Based Alzheimer's Disease Stage Classification
- Screening of Alzheimer's disease by facial complexion using artificial intelligence
- In situ monitoring of health in older adults: technologies and issues
- The Evaluation of Telehealth’s Impact on Medicare Annual Wellness Visits and Dementia Diagnosis
- Digital Intervention for the Management of Alzheimer'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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 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 →