27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 3285 included participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.4 (7.45) years; 1706 participants (52%) were female, 2661 (81%) had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease, and 1777 (54%) used symptomatic medications for Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with participants who learned that they had a not elevated amyloid result, individuals who learned of an elevated amyloid result were no more likely to experience short-term increases in depression (mean [SD] change in the Geriatric Depression Scale score, 0.02 [1.3] vs 0.04 [1.3]; P = .90), anxiety (mean [SD] change in State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score, -0.02 [3.2] vs -0.15 [3.0]; P = .65), or suicidality (mean [SD] change in the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale score, 0.0 [0.4] vs -0.01 [0.5]; P = .67). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,167 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Intensive treatment was associated with a small but statistically significant greater decrease in hippocampal volume compared with standard treatment, consistent with the observation that intensive treatment is associated with greater decreases in total brain volume. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,267 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nine phase 3 RCT cohorts from 8 eligible studies were identified, analyzing data from 6,315 patients. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,315 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This expert workgroup review summarizes what is known about ARIA, the brain-swelling (ARIA-E) and micro-bleeding (ARIA-H) side effect seen with anti-amyloid drugs. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We investigated the effect of crenezumab, a humanized anti-amyloid-beta (Aβ) immunoglobulin (Ig)G4 monoclonal antibody, on biomarkers of amyloid pathology, neurodegeneration, and disease progression in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Encoding-task fMRI was successfully implemented in a single-site, 24-week, AD randomized controlled trial. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive performance in mild AD improved following tACS, with increased FC within cortical networks and between the hippocampus and specific cortical regions. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 23 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
ARIA-positive patients had significantly higher Fazekas scores compared with ARIA-negative patients (1.37 versus 1.0; P = .0262), indicating a greater DWMH burden. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 27 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This special issue of Alzheimer's & Dementia celebrates the accomplishments of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) project as it approaches its 20th anniversary in 2024, supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
EXT showed high cross-sectional reliability and longitudinal stability. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four cognitive phenotypes emerged. One phenotype (18% of Aβ+ participants) showed the steepest cognitive decline, highest progression on the CDR, greater baseline medial temporal tau, and fastest neocortical tau accumulation over 4.6 years (hazard ratio [HR] for decline ≈ 2.9). 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The groups of individuals who agreed to participate in the imaging substudies of AD trials were remarkably comparable to the comparison groups at baseline on a wide range of demographic and clinical measures; there seems to be a minimal effect of self-selection bias. 4 key findings →
Participants: 166 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-targeting therapy has recently become widely available in the United States for the treatment of patients with symptomatic mild Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody therapies (AATs) are increasingly used for the treatment of early symptomatic Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Overall PiB-PET uptake increased during the first two years (before ARIA-E) and decreased during the last two years (including ARIA-E episodes) (0.03±0.05 vs. -0.04±0.04 SUVR/year, p-value=0.01, Figure 2). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall PiB-PET uptake increased during the first two years (before ARIA-E) and decreased during the last two years (including ARIA-E episodes) (0.03±0.05 vs. -0.04±0.04 SUVR/year, p-value=0.01, Figure 2). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, with an estimated 6.9 million Americans aged 65 and older living with Alzheimer dementia today, with this number projected to grow to 13.8 million by 2060. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The advent of anti-amyloid therapies (AATs) for Alzheimer disease (AD) has elevated the importance of MRI surveillance for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) such as microhemorrhages and siderosis (ARIA-H) and edema (ARIA-E). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have introduced a new era in the treatment of early Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Boston v2.0 criteria have low accuracy in patients with AD dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 63 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common dementing disorder, affecting 55 million people worldwide. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
PET imaging demonstrated high cortical brain uptake of all 3 radiotracers in Tg-ArcSwe mice. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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. Show only studies that are free to read
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.
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.
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 →