> 0.95) and is present in all African ancestry tested. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Overall SNP‐based heritability estimates using this restricted set of variants varied: AA ( h 2 = 0.13, SE=0.05), NHW ( h 2 = 0.14, SE=0.01), AsA ( h 2 = 0.29, SE=0.09) and HL ( h 2 = 0.48, SE=0.17). 2 key findings →
Participants: 6,343 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the testing cohort, the super learner obtained a concordance statistic (95% confidence interval) of 0.822 (0.810, 0.835), higher than any of the individual ML models (Figure 1), and its predicted risk aligned with observed risk in calibration slope plots (Figure 2). 2 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
39/100
We highlight a general overview and methodology of TNS. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The analyses of the community‐based U.S. POINTER indicate that AA/B individuals present differences in AD and related dementia biomarker values. nHW had higher fully adjusted cognitive scores. 5 key findings →
Participants: 644 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer Disease (AD) is a highly polygenic dementia that presents with relatively earlier onset (≤65yo; EOAD) in about 5% of cases. 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MIND diet may buffer the cognitive consequences of cerebrovascular pathology and cortical atrophy in older adults at elevated dementia risk and promote cognitive resilience over general healthy eating guidelines. 2 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ADI was positively associated with blood pressure and cardiometabolic index (CMI), and negatively associated with global and Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC5) scores, in cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
IntroductionNeuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS)--including aggression, psychosis, anxiety, apathy, and depression--affect up to 85% of individuals with Alzheimers disease (AD) and are among its most disabling and costly manifestations, accelerating cognitive and functional decline, institutionalization, mortality, and healthcare costs. 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
We investigated associations of neighborhood disadvantage with Alzheimer's Disease (AD)-related outcomes by biological and social factors in at-risk older adults. 1,880 U.S. POINTER participants with Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and cognition (PACC) were included. 868 had amyloid, tau PET, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), and/or gray matter volumes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The exposome factors, such as diet, lifestyle, microbiome, chemical exposures and social exposome, shapes human health beyond genetic influences, but the mechanisms remain only partially understood. 1 key finding →
Participants: 449 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 31,780 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