Of 490 participants, 251 were women (51.2%) and the mean (SD) age was 65.9 (13.1) years. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 225 Evidence: moderate
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.
66/100
We found that amyloid-β-positive cognitively unimpaired individuals were mainly characterized by decreased functional connectivity between the medial temporal lobe and regions in the anterior-temporal system, most prominently between left perirhinal/entorhinal cortices and medial prefrontal cortex. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Post-mortem studies indicate that in ageing and Alzheimer's disease tau tangles deposit early in the transentorhinal cortex, a region located in the anterior-temporal lobe that is critical for object memory. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
In Alzheimer's disease, post-mortem studies have shown that the first cortical site where neurofibrillary tangles appear is the transentorhinal region, a subregion within the medial temporal lobe that largely overlaps with Brodmann area 35, and the entorhinal cortex. 5 key findings →
Participants: 215 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Characterizing subtle cognitive changes in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) is difficult using traditional neuropsychological assessments. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Remote monitoring of cognition holds the promise to facilitate case-finding in clinical care and the individual detection of cognitive impairment in clinical and research settings. 1 key finding →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results demonstrate that unsupervised digital memory assessments might be used for diagnosis and prognosis in Alzheimer's disease, potentially in combination with plasma biomarkers. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is a pressing need to capture and track subtle cognitive change at the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease (AD) rapidly, cost-effectively, and with high sensitivity. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sleeping more than one’s usual average the night before testing was associated with better delayed memory ( β = 0.03, p = 0.02), while no between-person sleep effects emerged. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 329 Evidence: moderate
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 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 →