27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Participants allocated to CR received 10 weekly sessions over 3 months and four maintenance sessions over 6 months. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 475 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall estimates of treatment effect were calculated using a fixed-effect model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured using a standard Chi(2) statistic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings support the clinical efficacy of CR in early-stage AD. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cross-sectional associations support the view that enhancing cognitive reserve may benefit cognition, and maintenance of cognitive health may be supported by a healthy and active lifestyle, in later life. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The concept of cognitive reserve is proposed to explain the mismatch between the degree of pathological changes and their clinical manifestations and has been used to help understand the variation in the rate of cognitive decline and the development of dementias. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Future research should examine both current and pre-caregiving relationship quality. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Given the increased risk of progression to dementia for those identified as having MCI, the role of awareness should be explored further with due consideration given to the conceptualization of awareness and the methodology employed. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →