27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Age, sex, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) are the strongest risk factors for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,592 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The APOE-ε4 allele has long been associated with increased risks of Alzheimer's disease and mortality, but the effect of the less prevalent APOE-ε2 allele on diseases in the elderly and survival remains elusive. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 38,537 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Circulating homocysteine levels (tHcy), a product of the folate one carbon metabolism pathway (FOCM) through the demethylation of methionine, are heritable and are associated with an increased risk of common diseases such as stroke, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,710 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Overall, the psychological intervention and cognitive training may be beneficial to cognitive function and psychological well-being. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reduced exposure to environmental factors that contribute to cancer risk, tumour-suppressor genes on chromosome 21, or a slower rate of replication or higher likelihood of apoptosis in Down's syndrome cells, could be possible reasons for paucity of cancer in people with Down's syndrome. 4 key findings →
Participants: 17,897 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A thinner RNFL was associated with worse cognitive performance on baseline assessment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 38 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CSF sTREM2 levels are positively associated with an increased risk of AD and MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cognitive impairment patterns and the association with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in mental disorders remain poorly understood. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In mild AD patients aged less than 75 years, the mean age-at-diagnosis of AD in APOE4 carriers was reduced by over 6 years in BCHE-K carriers versus noncarriers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fifty-two papers were finally retained after screening. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The authors sought to examine the impact of the K-variant of butyrylcholinesterase (BCHE-K) carrier status on age-at-diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) in APOE4 carriers. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 33 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →