Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurological condition that leads to dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
28/100
Alzheimer's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder affecting millions globally, with early detection being critical for effective management. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early detection of Alzheimer's disease is crucial for effective treatment, and the use of brain MRI images has become a common method for diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results may contribute to refining current diagnostic techniques, promoting earlier detection, and assisting in the development of advanced tools for accurate brain tumor diagnosis and treatment planning. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
28/100
Alzheimer's disease is a form of progressive dementia that significantly impacts the quality of life of patients and their families. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A progressive neurological disease, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is identified by cognitive decline and memory loss. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Penyakit Alzheimer adalah jenis demensia akibat kerusakan pada neuron otak yang memengaruhi memori, bahasa, dan berpikir. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
OASIS-3 is a compilation of MRI and PET imaging and related clinical data for 1098 participants who were collected across several ongoing studies in the Washington University Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center over the course of 15 years. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,098 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease progresses heterogeneously across diverse cohorts, yet current predictive models fail to capture this complexity while remaining clinically interpretable. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,669 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The integration of artificial intelligence in medical image classification has significantly advanced disease detection. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BACKGROUNDQuantitative amyloid-beta (A{beta})-PET is increasingly used in AD prevention trials. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 433 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundThe brain age gap (BAG), the difference between neuroimaging-predicted and chronological age, captures inter-individual variation in brain aging. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are increasingly recognized as critical components of the disease progression in Alzheimers disease (AD), yet their relationship with neurodegeneration remain poorly characterized. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,756 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundThe Centiloid (CL) scale standardizes global amyloid PET quantification and is widely used to define amyloid positivity. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 71 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Understanding how the contents of consciousness, particularly perceptual awareness, change with the progression of AD is crucial for meaningful person-centred care. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early identification of Alzheimers disease and related dementias (ADRD) remains challenging despite its importance for timely intervention, management of modifiable risk factors, and care planning. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimers disease (AD) is characterized by substantial clinical and biological heterogeneity, with diverse neuroanatomical, cognitive, clinical, functional, and genetic risk profiles that are poorly captured by current diagnostic frameworks. 4 key findings →
Participants: 393 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundDementia is rising worldwide, and in Alzheimer Disease (AD) the loss of communication adds to the burden. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MTD showed excellent discrimination of CU versus MCI/DEM (AUC=.89; 95% CI=.87-.92), and discriminability remained high for CU versus MCI (AUC=.88; 95% CI=.85-.92). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,224 Evidence: moderate
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.
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →