27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We re-assessed after longer follow-up time in the large population-based cohort of the Rotterdam Study whether smoking habits and pack-years of smoking are associated with the risk of dementia, Alzheimer disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VaD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,868 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
White matter lesions, especially in the periventricular region, increase the risk of dementia in elderly people. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,077 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We investigated in a population-based cohort study the association of global and lobar brain tissue volumes with specific cognitive domains and risk of dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In our study, TSH was related neither to risk of AD nor with early MRI markers thereof, arguing against an important role of thyroid function in the development of AD. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,025 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebral blood flow (CBF) velocity is decreased in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,716 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This risk was not mediated by smaller hippocampal or amygdalar volumes. 2 key findings →
Participants: 503 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Atrophy of the hippocampus and amygdala on MRI in cognitively intact elderly people predicts dementia during a 6-year follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Type 2 diabetes is associated with hippocampal and amygdalar atrophy, regardless of vascular pathology. 4 key findings →
Participants: 506 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blood pressure and indicators of small-vessel disease in the brain may be associated with atrophy of structures affected by Alzheimer pathology. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
With the increased interest in the use of sequential magnetic resonance images as potential surrogate biomarkers of the disease process, it has also been shown that the rate of hippocampal atrophy is higher in persons with Alzheimer's disease compared to those with mild cognitive impairment and the healthy elderly. 5 key findings →
Participants: 244 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with Alzheimer's disease have higher plasma homocysteine levels than controls, but it is uncertain whether higher plasma homocysteine levels are involved in the early pathogenesis of the disease. 1 key finding →
Participants: 511 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cerebral small-vessel disease is common in older people and may contribute to the development of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 832 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Light-to-moderate alcohol intake is associated with a lower prevalence of vascular brain findings and, in APOE epsilon4 carriers, hippocampal and amygdalar atrophy on MRI. 3 key findings →
Participants: 509 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Since hippocampal volume has been found to be an early biomarker for Alzheimer's disease, there is large interest in automated methods to accurately, robustly, and reproducibly extract the hippocampus from MRI data. 3 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 →