27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 157 participants initially assessed, 137 were enrolled in the Age-Well clinical trial, and 127 were analyzed in this study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 157 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 135 older adults (mean age = 69.3 years; women = 61.5%), no associations were found within AD-signature regions (all p > 0.25). 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Capturing the dynamics of gray matter (GM) atrophy in relation to the conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to clinically probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) would be of considerable interest. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Hippocampal atrophy, posterior cingulate and frontal glucose hypometabolism, and white-matter tract disruption are well described early macroscopic events in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The hippocampus is the brain structure of highest and earliest structural alteration in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A sensitive marker for monitoring progression of early Alzheimer's disease would help to develop and test new therapeutic strategies. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are the two common neurodegenerative diseases characterized by progressive neuronal dysfunction in the presence of pathological microglial activation. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Anosognosia in AD is due not only to functional changes within cortical midline structures involved in self-referential processes (OFC, PCC), but also to disconnection between these regions as well as with the medial temporal lobe. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The FDG-positive subgroup showed only hypometabolism, predominantly in AD-sensitive areas extending to the whole neocortex, compared with the FDG-negative subgroup. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Shorter sleep duration and greater REM sleep variability may index early AD-related brain changes, warranting longitudinal studies to establish their prognostic significance. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high
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 →