28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Lipid-lowering medications (LLMs) and especially statin drugs can delay cognitive decline and dementia onset in individuals with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Neuropathology Task Force of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) has developed a practical and standardized neuropathology protocol for the postmortem assessment of dementia and control subjects. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We sought to develop and evaluate a composite memory score from the neuropsychological battery used in the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One hundred and twenty-six patients diagnosed with Alzheimer-type dementia were selected from among 200 consecutive outpatients evaluated for suspected dementia from 1980 to 1982. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 126 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Progression of Alzheimer dementia (AD) is highly variable. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Loss-of-function mutations in the GBA gene are associated with more severe cognitive impairment in PD, but the nature of these deficits is not well understood and whether common GBA polymorphisms influence cognitive performance in PD is not yet known. 4 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite advances in the clinical characterization of FTD, little is known about its rate of progression. 4 key findings →
Participants: 70 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The authors reviewed 135 subjects from a community-based study of dementia for whom autopsy and brain tissue was available. 4 key findings →
Participants: 135 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cross sectional analysis comparing prospectively collected research data with MDS data reported from nursing homes on identical subjects. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 140 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Mini-Cog, a composite of three-item recall and clock drawing, was developed as a brief test for discriminating demented from non-demented persons in a community sample of culturally, linguistically, and educationally heterogeneous older adults. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) is widely used in AD, but may be less responsive to change when used in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
Participants: 811 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) has a score range of 0 to 100 and provides quantitative assessment on attention, concentration, orientation, short-term memory, long-term memory, language abilities, visual construction, list-generating fluency, abstraction, and judgment.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All original research articles published in 2008 and 2009 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (n = 434) were reviewed using a structured data collection tool. 4 key findings →
Participants: 434 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
As elderly populations grow, dementia detection in the community is increasingly needed. 4 key findings →
Participants: 249 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We studied whether Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) norms for detecting dementia in elderly outpatients vary according to educational attainment. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Postmortem demonstration of increased expression of biologically active S100B in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its relation to progression of neuropathological changes across the cortical regions suggests involvement of this astrocytic cytokine in the pathophysiology of AD. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
To set a working cutoff score for the referral to diagnostic examination, we evaluated 150 consecutive patients with complaints potentially related to dementia, using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We selected screening tests that met 2 criteria: 1) administration time of 10 minutes or less in studies including individuals with, and without, dementia; and 2) performance characteristics evaluated in at least 1 community or clinical sample of older adults. 4 key findings →
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →