As a result, physicians struggle to interpret these models, and feel it is hard to trust them. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,048 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.
71/100
The literature has several methodological limitations including lack of sufficient algorithm development descriptions and standard definitions. 1 key finding →
Participants: 255 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Therefore, we conducted a longitudinal study to examine whether PM2.5 affects the episodic memory decline, and also explored the potential mediating role of increased neuroanatomic risk of Alzheimer's disease associated with exposure. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 998 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Previous studies from our group have shown that language changes may be reflected in connected speech production in the earliest stages of typical Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We evaluated 22 persons with nfvPPA (mean age: 67.3 years; 13 female patients) and confirmed underlying 4-repeat tauopathy, 15 persons with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA; mean age: 66.5 years; 8 female patients), and 10 healthy controls (HCs; 70 years; 5 female patients). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 12 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Comorbid cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors (CVM) differentially impact brain structure and increase dementia risk, but their specific magnetic resonance imaging signatures (MRI) remain poorly characterized. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 37,096 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is regarded as the first clinical manifestation in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The synthesized evidence is paramount to developing sophisticated AI approaches to reliably capture and quantify multiple subtle MRI changes in the whole brain that exemplify the complexity and heterogeneity of AD and brain aging. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
To develop a new method for measuring Alzheimer's disease (AD)-specific similarity of cortical atrophy patterns at the individual-level, we employed an individual-level machine learning algorithm. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 473 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We evaluated 62 Automated speech analysis demonstrated high accuracy in differentiating FTD subtypes and provided insights into the neural basis of language impairments. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 16 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Within the training set, individuals closer to or beyond their parent's symptom onset demonstrated reduced grey matter volume and altered functional connectivity, specifically in regions known to be vulnerable in Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 138 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study showed that plasma metabolites have the potential to match the AUC of well-established AD CSF biomarkers in a relatively small cohort. 4 key findings →
Participants: 883 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Four subphenotypes were computationally derived that correlated with cardiovascular diseases and mental health illnesses. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 273 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
We have established a valuable homogeneous single-center cohort which, by identifying groups of variables associated with high risk of MCI or dementia conversion, should help to clarify the early physiopathological mechanisms of AD and should provide avenues for prompt diagnosis and AD prevention. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,169 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The discovery cohort contained 3,671 individuals with a mean age of 68 years and consisted of 49% reported female. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,671 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In sum, we present a diagnostic tool for MCI and AD trained using baseline scans and a follow-up diagnosis regardless of progression, which is multi-diagnostic, generalizable across independent data sources and acquisition protocols, and with transparently reported performance. 5 key findings →
Participants: 570 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the present study, our automated classifier successfully classified FTD clinical subtypes with good to excellent accuracy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 143 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As a result, our combined method achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC) curve of 98.33, 93.59, 96.83, 94.64, 96.43, and 95.24% for AD vs. MCIs subjects which are high relative to single modality results and other state-of-the-art approaches. 2 key findings →
Participants: 158 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These models have revealed insights into frontotemporal dementia, Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and other conditions. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings suggest that GPS driving may serve as an effective and accurate digital biomarker for identifying preclinical AD among older adults. 2 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Precision medicine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) necessitates the development of personalized, reproducible, and neuroscientifically interpretable biomarkers, yet despite remarkable advances, few such biomarkers are available. 1 key finding →
Participants: 716 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Portable, low-field magnetic resonance imaging (LF-MRI) of the brain may facilitate point-of-care assessment of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in settings where conventional MRI cannot. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder and the most common type of dementia with a great prevalence in western countries. 1 key finding →
Participants: 49 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
ATTRACTnet was developed in an internal test set of 799 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [11.1] years; 516 [64.7%] male and 283 [35.3%] female) using 5-fold cross-validation with an additional external test set of 422 patients. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 799 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest that dCDT is a suitable screening tool to identify early cognitive dysfunction. 1 key finding →
Participants: 381 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. 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 →