These samples were graded on an ordinal scale and genotyped for variants associated with synucleinopathies. 2 key findings →
Participants: 213 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.
The cumulative incidence of cognitive impairment was 8.5% at year 1, increasing to 47.4% by year 6. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 141 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, but not the Mini-Mental State Examination, has adequate psychometric properties as a screening instrument for the detection of mild cognitive impairment or dementia in Parkinson disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 132 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) Consortium has revised criteria for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB incorporating new information about the core clinical features and suggesting improved methods to assess them. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive impairment is one of the earliest, most common, and most disabling non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 360 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Here, we investigated if TAR-DNA-binding protein-43 (TDP-43), the disease protein in frontotemporal lobar degeneration and ubiquitin inclusions with or without motor neuron disease as well as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also formed inclusions in Lewy body (LB) disorders including Parkinson's disease (PD) without or with dementia (PDD), and dementia with LBs (DLB) alone or in association with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Aggregated alpha-synuclein proteins form brain lesions that are hallmarks of neurodegenerative synucleinopathies, and oxidative stress has been implicated in the pathogenesis of some of these disorders. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
For more than a decade, researchers have refined criteria for the diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and at the same time have recognized that cognitive impairment and dementia occur commonly in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Intracytoplasmic inclusions composed of alpha-synuclein (alpha-syn) are characteristic of neurodegenerative Lewy body disorders. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Hippocampal atrophy is a biomarker of initial cognitive decline in PD, including impaired memory encoding and storage, suggesting heterogeneity in the neural substrate of memory impairment. 3 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 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 →