Our results converge on the conclusion that vtaVNS does not uniformly amplify cortical responses to external stimuli. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer’s disease disrupts large-scale brain networks before cognitive symptoms emerge, yet the mechanisms underlying this progression remain unclear. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Anxiety localizes to a brain circuit resembling the AD-related atrophy network, is consistent across the AD continuum and may extend beyond AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,775 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We tested whether, across sexes, alignment with female-typical, rather than male-typical, patterns of neural functional connectivity (FC) would relate to a diagnosis (adolescent sample) or severity of symptoms (adult sample) associated with internalizing disorders, which tend to be more often diagnosed in females. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Launched in 2010 by the National Institutes of Health, the Human Connectome Project (HCP) represents a foundational initiative in systems neuroscience, designed to map the structural and functional architecture of the human brain. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
At the group level, the resting alpha abnormality in AD comprises two partly nonredundant dimensions: reduced expression and a weaker temporal link between alpha and subsequent multi-rhythm activity. 1 key finding →
Participants: 36 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found opposite effects of age on FMAR at both short and long time scales, respectively (ßAge=0.014, 95% C.I. [0.009,0.019] and ßAge=-0.015, 95% C.I. [-0.026,-0.005]), as well as differences between women and men at long time scales (ßSexMen=+0.028, 95% C.I. [0.012,0.044]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The theta/alpha ratio is a promising but specification-dependent marker of cognitive impairment, contingent particularly on ICA and spectral power quantification. 4 key findings →
Participants: 49 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Only the reliability half of that contrast is individually significant. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings indicate that all methods captured AD disconnection patterns but exhibited variability in preserving connectivity profiles, which seemed non-random but rather systematically linked to clinical measures and predictive power for AD classification. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Understanding how a stable structural connectome supports flexible cognition, especially in aging, is a fundamental question in neuroscience. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study reveals a myelin-mediated mechanism of rTMS action in AD, demonstrating the potential of promoting myelination as a novel therapeutic strategy for alleviating AD-related cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
10 of the 187 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
- Early detection of dementia with default-mode network effective connectivity
- Brain Network Connectivity Mediates Education-related Cognitive Performance in Healthy Elderly Adults
- Functional Connectivity of the Hippocampus in Early- and vs. Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease
- Functional neural network analysis in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease using EEG and graph theory
- Functional Re-organization of Cortical Networks of Senior Citizens After a 24-Week Traditional Dance Program
- Aberrant functional connectivity of default-mode network in type 2 diabetes patients
- Resting-state network dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- High-resolution functional connectivity of the default mode network in young adults with down syndrome
- Functional Brain Connectivity Patterns Associated with Visual Hallucinations in Dementia with Lewy Bodies
- Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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. Show only studies that are free to read
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 →