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
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P Conclusions and relevance Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 468 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In ADNI, Aβ-positive participants showed more decline than did Aβ-negative participants with regard to the ADCS-PACC score at 24 months (mean [SE] difference, -1.239 [0.522] [95% CI, -2.263 to -0.215]; P = .02). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A new secondary prevention trial in older people with amyloid accumulation at high risk for Alzheimer's disease dementia should provide insights into whether anti-amyloid therapy can delay cognitive decline. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 482 participants in the safety population, 140 of 158 participants (88.6%) assigned to placebo, 117 of 166 participants (70.5%) to 224 mg of edonerpic maleate, and 120 of 158 participants (76.0%) to 448 mg of edonerpic maleate completed the trial. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 482 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CSF synaptic biomarkers, particularly NPTX2, which regulates synaptic homeostasis, relate to cognition and predict progression in AD beyond Aβ1-42 and Tau. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subjective cognitive complaints are a criterion for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), despite their uncertain relationship to objective memory performance in MCI. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
The present study investigated the ability of the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT), a picture naming test recently added to the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's (NACC) Uniform Data Set neuropsychological test battery, to detect naming impairment (i.e., dysnomia) across stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,981 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
Abnormalities of the P600 or N400 in mild cognitive impairment are associated with an increased risk of subsequent conversion to Alzheimer disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The relationship between PP and CSF biomarkers is age-dependent and observed only in participants in the fifth and sixth decades of life. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuropsychological assessment has featured prominently over the past 30 years in the characterization of dementia associated with Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
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.
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 →