36.5% of the overall cohort experienced delirium. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Brain atrophy occurs in aging even in the absence of dementia, but it is unclear to what extent this is due to undetected preclinical Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings indicate EXT may be more sensitive to Aβ's role in preclinical AD than level and improve targeting of individuals for AD prevention trials. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These data support the hypothesis that neuronal endosomal dysfunction is associated with preclinical AD. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid PET imaging is a novel diagnostic test that can detect in living humans one of the two defining pathologic lesions of Alzheimer disease, amyloid-β deposition in the brain. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
For prediction of dementia in MCI, the AD signature cortical thickness biomarker performed better than hippocampal volume. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results suggest that increased baseline hallucinations, apathy and anxiety are associated with current and future disease progression in AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
25 older individuals with MCI performed a visual scene encoding task during fMRI scanning, and were followed clinically for at least 4 years after scanning. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study found that in preclinical AD, overweight and obesity were associated with better verbal memory in women, whereas obesity was associated with worse global cognition among men. 4 key findings →
Participants: 387 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid PET imaging is a novel diagnostic test that can detect in living humans one of the two defining pathologic lesions of Alzheimer disease, amyloid-β deposition in the brain. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 32,430 individuals (mean age at first hospital encounter 76.6±10.9 years; 59.1% female; 4.2% African American; 5.0% Hispanic), only 16.0% received an MCI diagnosis before their dementia diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 32,430 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Impairment in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) heralds the transition from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia and is a major source of burden for both the patient and caregiver. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Aβ + CN individuals performed worse than Aβ-CN participants in the SCBC while the SOC only distinguished Aβ − CN from MCI participants. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Surprisingly, demographic normalisation worsened rather than improved diagnostic accuracy for detecting MCI with both MoCA and MMSE, reducing their effectiveness as diagnostic tools and confirming our hypothesis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated