27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The sample consisted of 447 decedents (249 men [56%]; mean [SD] age, 80.3 [9.5] years; median year of death, 2011) spanning 24 years of donation. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 24 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample included 740 donors (417 female [56.4%]; mean [SD] age at death, 81.5 [10.3] years; mean [SD] VBI score, 0.7 [1.0]; and median life course ADI, 7.08 [IQR, 4.33-9.83]), with residential years spanning 1905 to 2018. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 740 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
-fold changes of 1.21, 0.57, and 4.63, respectively, compared to A-. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 252 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neighborhood disadvantage was associated with worse cognitive performance on memory, executive function, processing speed, and preclinical Alzheimer's tests on both datasets. 5 key findings →
Participants: 524 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found that ∼25% of donors lived in high deprivation contexts, 52% had at least one incidence of CVD, and the cohort identified as .05). 3 key findings →
Participants: 7,187 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with education, health behaviors and mortality. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,479 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Understanding the distribution of SV2A in DS will provide insight on changes to synaptic density in populations with accelerated AD neuropathology. 3 key findings →
Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Understanding the distribution of SV2A in DS will provide insight on changes to synaptic density in populations with accelerated AD neuropathology. 3 key findings →
Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Reducing Alzheimer disparities and generating the evidence needed to promote brain health for everyone requires diverse research representation, including areas near an ADRC. 3 key findings →
Participants: 428 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our findings suggest differences in local cortical organization by neighborhood disadvantage, which also mediated the relationship between ADI and cognitive performance, providing a possible network‐based mechanism, explaining risk for cognitive decline and dementia associated with disadvantaged neighborhoods. 3 key findings →
Participants: 526 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest differences in local cortical organization by neighborhood disadvantage, which also mediated the relationship between ADI and cognitive performance, providing a possible network‐based mechanism, explaining risk for cognitive decline and dementia associated with disadvantaged neighborhoods. 3 key findings →
Participants: 526 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Access is controlled through both technical and procedural methods and overseen by an external advisory committee Results Expo‐AD is currently storing personal identifiers and neuropathology data of 10,875 brain donors acquired from 22 participating brain banks and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study shows promise for clarifying the relationship between the social exposome and ADRD brain pathology post‐mortem. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →