Statins show mixed results in CKD and ESRD, with limited benefits in reducing cardiovascular events in dialysis patients. 4 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.
41/100
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major global health burden, ranking as one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is becoming a major public health problem in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), with prevalence increasing due to demographic transitions, increasing life expectancy, and increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MobileNet achieved the highest overall performance, with an accuracy of 99.44%. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer remain the leading causes of mortality in the United States, where poor diet has surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor for death, and life expectancy has hit a plateau as CVD mortality has stagnated over the past decade. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This review seeks to understand what urban planning and management can do to reduce disaster risk and help cities adapt to the impacts of climate change. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The origins of many diseases can be traced to the dynamic interplay of genetic predispositions and environmental exposures post-birth. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results showed that Age, Education, and, occasionally, Biological sex were significant predictors. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, the combined features model achieved a higher discrimination accuracy than models with single feature sets alone. 5 key findings →
Participants: 128 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early detection of abnormal neurodegeneration amidst normal cognitive aging is crucial. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91; P<.001). 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 35 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-six percent of eligible ED users contacted elected for study enrollment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 160 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MMSE-2 demonstrated robust performance in differentiating participants across Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) stages and CDR-Sum of Boxes scores. 5 key findings →
Participants: 66 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results emphasize the role of fluid biomarkers in diagnosing dementia in low‐resource settings in South Asians. 5 key findings →
Participants: 70 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Average age of participants was 66 (21-88) years. 25 were biologically female and 15 were amyloid positive. 5 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In both cohorts there were significant associations between CSF MTBR-tau243 and the temporal meta-ROI (BioFINDER-2: t = 17.1, p < 0.001, Knight-ADRC: t=11.0, p <0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The model achieves accuracy rates of 94% on the brain tumor dataset, 81% on the augmented Alzheimer dataset, and 93% on the third dataset, underscoring its capability to differentiate various neurological conditions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
A total of 51 patients with AD, age (median: 73 years) and 53 cognitively normal subjects (median age: 69) were included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The model showed excellent fit. Caregiver burden had a significant direct effect on anxiety (59.1% of the total effect), while indirect effects accounted for 40.9%. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four themes emerged: layered caregiving burden, cultural strain and emotional dissonance, dual emotional experiences of caregiving, and coping strategies and unmet needs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia (AD/ADRD) face significant emotional and logistical challenges that place them at heightened risk for stress, anxiety, and depression. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia significantly impacts cognitive, behavioral, and functional abilities, creating challenges for both individuals and caregivers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Six key themes emerged: (1) challenges in daily care; (2) strain from behavioral and sleep disruptions; (3) difficulties in seeking help; (4) personal sacrifices of caregivers; (5) emotional burdens associated with caregiving, including comorbidity concerns of PwD; (6) limited dementia knowledge and essential caregiving skills. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
People with dementia (PWD) are frequently exposed to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use, in which the risks of medication use outweigh the benefits or the medication is not aligned with treatment goals. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Shifting Expectations narrative indicated that PwD's needs shifted to co-constructed needs with their family as PwD's independence declined. 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
- 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 →