66/100
Alzheimer disease (AD) has a significant impact on caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,059 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This approach, describing the 14 years preceding dementia, provides a clear illustration of the particularly long and progressive prodromal phase of AD, and shows the successive emergence of cognitive deficits, depressive symptoms, and functional impairment during this phase. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Based on the hypothesis of glutamate-induced neurotoxicity (excitotoxicity) in cerebral ischemia, this study examined the efficacy and tolerability of memantine, an uncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist, in the treatment of mild to moderate vascular dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 321 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study is the first to show that, 10 years before the clinical diagnosis of dementia, subjects who later developed dementia performed worse in complex activities of daily living, which may constitute an early marker of the disease. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 104 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Conventionally defined MCI has reasonable predictive value and specificity for AD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,265 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Inclusion of instrumental activities of daily living restriction in the criteria of mild cognitive impairment improves the prediction of dementia and the stability of this status over time. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,517 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Criteria for the diagnosis of vascular dementia (VaD) that are reliable, valid, and readily applicable in a variety of settings are urgently needed for both clinical and research purposes. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Better knowledge of the preclinical phase of Alzheimer's disease would be an important advance to allow earlier treatment of this ominous disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,050 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
53/100
Alcoholism is a possible cause of dementia, mainly through associated nutritional deficiencies and, rarely, through acute direct toxicity. 1 key finding →
Participants: 3,777 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) was proposed as an umbrella term to include subjects affected with any degree of cognitive impairment resulting from cerebrovascular disease (CVD), ranging from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to vascular dementia. 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 →