It was found that the top cited 100 articles came from 51 journals and 31 countries. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Research on AI's role in diagnosing neurological disorders is becoming widely recognized for its growing importance. 2 key findings →
Participants: 276 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The unprecedented rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent times is unparalleled in history.AI 1 seemingly possesses cognitive abilities that hitherto only humans could boast of -reason, an inimitable, embodied, and finite existence. 47Nonetheless, the ubiquitous abilities of AI can help to enhance treatment and care for PLWDs in 48 enabling early diagnosis, continuous monitoring and personalized support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
33/100
Conventional dementia screening tools, whether paper tests or static artificial intelligence (AI) models, capture only a snapshot of cognition and need to be adminstered periodically. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The approval of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease demands a rethinking of cognitive screening. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
33/100
Dementia is a progressive condition that affects cognitive and functional abilities. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This approach predicts clinical progression (2-year Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes change > 1) with an area under the curve of 0.836. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data from the qualitative interviews will provide dyad preferences for intervention development. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
32/100
Dementia is the waning of cognitive abilities, which is typically seen with the natural aging process and includes issues with memory, language, and problem-solving abilities. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proposed protocol for the CAREFIT programme represents an innovative and multidisciplinary initiative that leverages a digital platform to promote the well-being of informal caregivers of people with dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In last two decades the growing life expectancy has spiralled the prevalence of neurogenerative disorder such as Dementia among elderly population posing a significant challenge to mental health globally. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia, the most common subtype of which is Alzheimer’s disease, represents a significant global and social health challenge. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results suggest a viable pathway for developing ML support tools to provide feedback on DDP compliance at an early design stage. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The global increase in the elderly population, which is expected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, has highlighted the need for reliable monitoring systems to assist elderly individuals, especially those with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
28/100
While this process allows machine learning models to make more precise and reliable diagnoses, systems developed on the basis of Dr. Roman Poznanski's DOT (Dynamic Optimization of Thought) theory offer a new method in the diagnosis of neurological diseases. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, AI has substantial potential to support more precise, person-centred care for older adults, but realising this promise will require multimorbidity-aware, transparent models, robust evaluation in diverse geriatric populations and governance frameworks that ensure fairness, privacy and meaningful human oversight. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia and represents a significant global health problem due to its profound impact on patients' quality of life and the heavy burden it places on health care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
16/100
Body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related cardiometabolic features associate with Alzheimers disease (AD) risk, yet shared mechanisms remain poorly understood. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes. 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,328 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
IntroductionFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a devastating disease that commonly results in early onset dementia, yet its rarity and heterogeneity limit large-scale research and clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Pain assessment remains challenging in clinical practice. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.
1,034 records (3.6% 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 →