27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) often represents an early form of Alzheimer disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Feeling lonely rather than being alone is associated with an increased risk of clinical dementia in later life and can be considered a major risk factor that, independently of vascular disease, depression and other confounding factors, deserves clinical attention. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Memory complaints in elderly people should no longer be considered merely as an innocent age-related phenomenon or a symptom of depression. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The visual association test (VAT) is a brief learning task based on imagery mnemonics. 4 key findings →
Participants: 83 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of the study was to investigate the value of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for use by general practitioners (GPs) in a group of elderly patients in whom the GPs are considering a dementia diagnosis. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
To determine whether the medial temporal lobe is atrophic in subjects with mild cognitive impairment, and whether atrophy of this structure is a better predictor of dementia than memory dysfunction. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Population studies indicate that subjective memory complaints by elderly people are correlated with cognitive performance. 4 key findings →
Participants: 2,114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study showed a large number of unmet needs in dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The positive effects might be caused by the systematic and tailored individual way of information provisioning by DEM-DISC. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Previous studies showed circadian rhythm disturbances in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 34 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Advance directives for euthanasia are never adhered to in the Netherlands in the case of people with advanced dementia, and their role in advance care planning and end-of-life care of people with advanced dementia is limited. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over the years 2005-2006, many ECPs took care of patients with dementia and an ADE, actual life termination of these patients took place very rarely and never in incompetent patients. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →