42/100
A wide range of human diseases are associated with protein misfolding and amyloid aggregates. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
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.
It has been demonstrated to have neuroprotective effects in cellular models of neurodegenerative diseases; however, its precise mechanism of action in alleviating tau pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD), as well as its potential to improve cognitive deficits in animal models, has not yet been elucidated. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The analysis revealed five distinct themes: (1) impact of the program, (2) facilitators enhancing participation, (3) barriers hindering participation, (4) suggestions for improving participation and (5) challenges to adopt digital platforms. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MI group significantly improved in attention-executive functioning (p = 0.003) compared to ACI (Cohen's d: 0.47, 95% CI 0.13-0.79). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After adjusting for baseline scores via ANCOVA, the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher post-intervention outcomes compared to the control group (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 58 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Greater perceived control at study baseline was associated with reduced hazard of ADRD. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,021 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD-MCI) can affect several cognitive domains, including attention, working memory, executive functions, language, visuospatial skills, and episodic memory, resulting in a progressive reduction of autonomy and an increased risk of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 23 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although a substantial proportion of TG participants achieved high MI accuracy values, statistical analyses revealed no cognitive improvements specific to TG, suggesting limited efficacy of the MI-based protocol compared to classical cognitive stimulation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
42/100
Individuals with Alzheimer’s dementia exhibited poorer nutritional status (EdFED: 8.0 vs. 2.0; NUFFE: 10.0 vs. 7.0; both p < 0.001) and lower adherence to the Mediterranean diet (6.0 vs. 7.0; p = 0.050). 3 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DSD occurred in 680 patients (39.8%). Compared with dementia alone, DSD was associated with higher PAS scores (5.3 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001), poorer functional status (FIM 48.6 vs. 57.8, p < 0.001) and more frequent in-hospital falls (29.9% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,709 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
121 SCU admissions involved 107 unique patients. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sensor-based surveillance technology (SST) is increasingly employed in the care of people with dementia (PwD) in hospitals, nursing homes, and home care. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MoCA score and the SCWT duration of the real group improved significantly compared with that of the sham group. 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Up to 60% of people living with dementia who reside in care homes will ‘wander’ at some point. 1 key finding →
Participants: 19 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sixteen of 30 cases with DLB pathology had no parkinsonism, which represented diverse nigral neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregivers in the control conditions reported significantly worsening sleep efficiency whereas in comparison, those in the active conditions reported improving sleep efficiency. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
POD occurred in 43 patients (4.1%). Affected patients were older, in poorer preoperative health, and had longer anaesthesia and surgery times. 5 key findings →
Participants: 43 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Interviews with 50 Dutch physicians and 47 American physicians and 3 nurse practitioners generated three themes of ethical considerations: (1) Respecting the autonomy of the person with dementia, (2) Rationality as the basis for decisions and subsequent actions, and (3) Minimizing burden and suffering. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proportion of palliative utilization in cancer deaths started at 21.7% in 2010 and increased to 63.2% by 2020 with the beta coefficient of 0.09 (95% CI: 0.09-0.09). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants actively contemplated ACP following their parents' death, referring to their end-of-life caregiving experiences as guideposts for issues to anticipate and opportunities to enhance receipt of healthcare during serious illness or incapacitation. 5 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 200 physicians participated in the study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 200 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 85 patients were enrolled; 28 (32.9%) were classified as NECPAL-positive and 57 (67.1%) as NECPAL-negative. 5 key findings →
Participants: 85 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants sought to feel secure by following recommended practices, manage uncertainty, avoid crises, share burdens within families, and avoid poor end-of-life experiences. 5 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The item-bank included 180 symptoms, most of which focus group nurses (n = 17) identified as occurring in advanced dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ALPS-index showed a stepwise decline with increasing WMH severity and cognitive impairment (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 124 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 →