We found higher risks of COVID-19-related outcomes among Black and Hispanic individuals. 5 key findings →
Participants: 138,533 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
NIH Conferences21 June 2005National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Management of Menopause-Related SymptomsFREENIH State-of-the-Science Panel*NIH State-of-the-Science Panel*Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_1-200506210-00117 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus and state-of-the-science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and the morning of the third. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
Mortality patterns in 2007, such as the decline in the age-adjusted death rate to a record historical low, were generally consistent with long-term trends. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,423,712 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
48/100
In 2004, a total of 2,397,615 deaths were reported in the United States. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,397,615 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Obesity is a significant health crisis affecting more than 123 million adults and children/adolescents in the US. 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
An estimated 2.88 million deaths occurred between March and December 2020. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
41/100
Health screening is an important component of health promotion programs, and countries have promoted general health screening targeting the prevention and early management of common chronic diseases. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2017, the 10 leading causes of death were, in rank order: Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Cerebrovascular diseases; Alzheimer disease; Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Intentional self-harm (suicide). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The age-adjusted death rate decreased from 747.0 deaths per 100,000 population in 2010 to 740.6 deaths per 100,000 population in 2011. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The age-adjusted death rate decreased from 758.7 deaths per 100,000 population in 2008 to 741.0 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2010, the 10 leading causes of death were, in rank order: Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Cerebrovascular diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Alzheimer's disease; Diabetes mellitus; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; Influenza and pneumonia; and Intentional self-harm (suicide). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2002, the 10 leading causes of death were (in rank order) Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Alzheimer's disease; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia and accounted for about 79 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2000 the 10 leading causes of death were (in rank order) Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Alzheimer's disease; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia and accounted for nearly 80 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In 2001, the 10 leading causes of death were (in rank order) Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Alzheimer's disease; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia and accounted for nearly 80 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The age-adjusted death rate for the United States decreased from 832.7 deaths per 100,000 population in 2003 to 801.0 deaths per 100,000 population in 2004. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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