Digital biomarkers are revolutionizing medicine in ways that were unimaginable a few years ago. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Galantamine appears to be an effective and safe therapy for patients with DLB. 2 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The machine learning model predicted MMSE scores with a root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of 2.43 in the BH test set. 4 key findings →
Participants: 945 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuroscience is developing rapidly by providing a variety of modern tools for analyzing the functional interactions of the brain and detection of pathological deviations due to neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seven female patients with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) were treated with long-term, low-dose estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) over a period of 5-45 months. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 234 patients, 143 (61.1%) were Aβ-positive. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 234 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study was designed to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of estrogen in female patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). 4 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease that threatens to the health of global elderly population. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and AChE inhibitors play critical roles in the early diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In addition to causing distress and disability to the individual, neuropsychiatric disorders are also extremely expensive to society and governments. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reminiscence therapy is beneficial for improving the quality of life for older adults living with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a cohort of 75 patients who completed Moneta's program (average age 73 ± 10, average MoCA score 20 ± 5), 59% had MCI and 33% had dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
36/100
No statistically significant differences emerged between SDW and GW groups regarding baseline demographics, cognitive function, ADL, or neuropsychiatric symptoms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The purpose of this article is to identify the cognitive deficits commonly associated with geriatric depression and describe their clinical significance. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This paper considers the suitability of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog) as the gold standard in registration trials of treatments for Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The observation group had significantly lower Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) scores than the control group (both P<0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study (RCT) investigated the impact of Expressive Therapies Continuum (ETC)-based art therapy on cognitive function and quality of life among older adults with dementia living in a complex care setting. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Compared with conventional activities, GDRT resulted in significantly greater reductions in overall BPSD (r = 0.56, p = .001) and caregiver burden (r = 0.44, p = .011). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive impairment in the elderly causes a decrease in the ability to do various things related to thinking and remembering. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although most Korean older adults declined LST regardless of living arrangement, determinants of LST preferences differed according to household structure. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,787 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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