Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Across Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs), the fight against dementia faces pressing challenges, such as heterogeneity, diversity, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These results suggest that bvFTD may be characterized by an allostatic-interoceptive overload manifested in ongoing electrophysiological markers, brain atrophy, functional networks, and cognition. 4 key findings →
Participants: 94 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
55/100
TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) aggregation is the most common pathological hallmark in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and characterizes nearly all patients with motor neuron disease (MND). 3 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Digital biomarker prognostic models can be a useful tool to assist large-scale population screening for the early detection of cognitive impairment and patient monitoring over time. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the field of neurodegeneration, speech and language assessments are useful for diagnosing aphasic syndromes and for characterizing other disorders. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Electrophysiology Professional Interest Area (EPIA) and Global Brain Consortium endorsed recommendations on candidate electroencephalography (EEG) measures for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 8976 decedents (mean [SD] age, 81.3 [8.6] years; 4927 women [55.1%] women) in the cohort, 2197 (22.5%) were included in the low wealth category, 4534 (50.5%) in the medium wealth category, and 2245 (27.1%) in the high wealth category. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clarifying the relationships between neuropsychiatric symptoms and Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related pathology may open avenues for effective treatments. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
TabCAT tests showed good convergent validity with traditional pen-and-paper tests. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
Of 11 327 324 Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in hospice between 2010 and 2020 who met eligibility criteria (mean [SD] age, 85.2 [7.5] years; 781 763 [63.0%] female), there were 958 182 (8.4%) with a primary diagnosis of AD, 232 864 (2.1%) with PD, and 49 340 (0.4%) with DLB. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalence of dementia in Latin America and the Caribbean is growing rapidly, increasing the burden placed on caregivers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We investigated whether specific SLEs are associated with AD pathology and neurodegeneration and how these associations differ by gender and education. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the within-language condition, combined speech timing and lexico-semantic features yielded maximal classification (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]=0.88), outperforming single-feature models (AUC=0.79 for timing features; AUC=0.80 for lexico-semantic features). 5 key findings →
Participants: 211 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In total, 156 individuals were assessed for eligibility, and 79 (51%) were recruited (mean age 61.6 ± 6.9 (range 60-75) years; 68% male). 5 key findings →
Participants: 156 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest that microglial and astrocyte reactivity, measured through fluid biomarkers, occur early and impact the amyloid cascade on the preclinical Alzheimer´s continuum. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Digital technology is transforming the development of drugs for Alzheimer's disease and was the topic of the Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable on its May 23-24, 2017 meeting. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
RBC DHA was associated with a positive (improved) global cognition (PACC) rate of change (estimate: 0.011; 95% CI: 0.001, 0.021; P = 0.024). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We recruited 1501 participants (304 with FTLD, 512 with AD, and 685 healthy controls) from the Multi-Partner Consortium to Expand Dementia Research in Latin America (ReDLat). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,501 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cohort study examines the use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine among older adults with dementia after admission into hospice care despite the medications’ limited clinical benefit following enrollment into hospice. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multimorbidity-the co-occurrence of two or more chronic health conditions-affects > 86% of people with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cross-sectional studies suggest a limited relationship between accelerated epigenetic aging derived from epigenetic clocks, and Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology or risk. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Raw scores were converted to regression‐based Z‐scores and averaged at the domain and overall level. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 320 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Odds ratios for death, dementia, and delirium using anticholinergic-polypharmacy pseudoscales (median = 1.09-1.10) were greater than those of general-polypharmacy pseudoscales (1.05-1.06). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The model accurately identified dementia subtypes using measures readily available in underrepresented settings, with a similar performance than advanced biomarkers. 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.
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 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