30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The drug did not prevent clinical progression in a trial involving patients with mild-to-moderate dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,454 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 445 participants (243 with normal amyloid, 202 with elevated amyloid), mean (SD) age was 74.0 (5.9) years, mean education was 16.4 (2.7) years, and 52% were women. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 243 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Exercise intensity did not differentially affect cognitive trajectory. 2 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 296 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Galantamine is a specific, competitive, and reversible acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,805 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The largest cohort, the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer Disease Study (n = 3154), was the PET screening cohort used for a secondary prevention trial designed to slow cognitive decline associated with brain amyloidosis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,154 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Ladostigil was safe and well tolerated but did not delay progression to dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 107 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
11 studies were identified, including 380 patients with AD, 68 with MCI and 293 healthy controls (HC). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 380 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is an ongoing, longitudinal, multicenter study designed to develop clinical, imaging, genetic, and biochemical biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The large number of participants screened with amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and standardized assessments provides an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate factors associated with elevated brain amyloid. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,486 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition marked by a decline in cognitive functions with no validated disease modifying treatment. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene is the best established genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease in later life, with the ε4 allele conferring higher risk. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 9,496 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sensitive detection of cognitive decline over the course of preclinical Alzheimer's disease is critical as the field moves toward secondary prevention trials. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Assessment of the cingulum fibers using diffusion tensor imaging may aid early diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We describe the first large-scale, potentially label-enabling clinical trial of a preclinical treatment for ADAD. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 300 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During the past decade, a conceptual shift occurred in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) considering the disease as a continuum.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although Aβ did not differ by sex, cognitive decline was greater in females with higher Aβ. 3 key findings →
Participants: 755 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We compared two methods of diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI): conventional Petersen/Winblad criteria as operationalized by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and an actuarial neuropsychological method put forward by Jak and Bondi designed to balance sensitivity and reliability. 1,150 ADNI participants were diagnosed at baseline as cognitively normal (CN) or MCI via ADNI criteria (MCI: n = 846; CN: n = 304) or Jak/Bondi criteria (MCI: n = 401; CN: n = 749), and the two MCI samples were submitted to cluster and discriminant function analyses. 2 key findings →
Participants: 846 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The authors used mixed-effects growth models to examine longitudinal change in neuropsychological performance over a 4-year period among 197 individuals who were either normal or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathologies were discovered in the accessible neurosensory retina. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blood pressure variability is an emerging risk factor for cognitive decline and dementia, but mechanisms remain unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants age 60-85 years deemed cognitively unimpaired were disclosed an elevated or not elevated brain amyloid result by a certified clinician. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,686 Evidence: high
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
Within a heterogenous group of MCI patients, including many with clinically significant CVD, baseline memory and executive performance significantly predicted likelihood to develop dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The average detection rates for mild cognitive impairment is 0.08 (interquartile range=0.00-0.02) for both clinicians and practices, suggesting that only about 8% of expected cases were diagnosed on average. 3 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results support the feasibility of bridging of clinical trials in the prodromal stage of AD between Asia and western countries. 3 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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