We concluded that liraglutide improves cognitive decline in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease is the primary cause of dementia worldwide, with an increasing morbidity burden that may outstrip diagnosis and management capacity as the population ages. 5 key findings →
Participants: 417 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Social determinants of health (SDHs) are the primary drivers of preventable health inequities, and the associations between SDHs and health outcomes among individuals with type 2 diabetes remain unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A polygenic score (PGS) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) was derived recently from data on genome-wide significant loci in European ancestry populations. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects half the US population over the age of 85 and is universally fatal following an average course of 10 years of progressive cognitive disability. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This transcriptomic network analysis of 19 brain regions provides a comprehensive assessment of the critical molecular pathways associated with AD pathology and offers new insights into molecular mechanisms underlying selective regional vulnerability to AD at different stages of the progression of cognitive compromise and development of the canonical neuropathological lesions of AD. 5 key findings →
Participants: 125 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MemTrax can effectively detect both clinically diagnosed MCI and AD with better accuracy as compared to the MoCA based on AUCs in a Chinese cohort. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are neurodegenerative diseases (NDD) characterized by progressive degeneration of the central nervous system, and few medications are available to halt the progression of AD and PD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
With the rapid generation of spatial transcriptomics (ST) data, integrative analysis of multiple ST datasets from different conditions, technologies and developmental stages is becoming increasingly important. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Laser-scanning confocal microscopy, flow cytometry analysis and inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy ICP-AES revealed high cellular uptake of B6-SA-SeNPs by cerebral endothelial cells (bEnd.3). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most branched-chain amino acids, except isoleucine (Ile), are correlated with both mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD. 4 key findings →
Participants: 700 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) develop a genetic form of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) due to an extra copy of chromosome 21, which contains the APP gene. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
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 →