30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A novel amyloid β (Aβ) synthetic peptide vaccine (UB-311) has been evaluated in a first-in-human trial with patients of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
About one fourth of Lewy body disease (LBD) patients show cortical beta-amyloid load, basically a hallmark of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Depression is a frequent condition in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 316 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Oxidative stress and energy depletion are characteristic biochemical hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), thus antioxidants with positive effects on glucose metabolism such as thioctic (alpha-lipoic) acid should exert positive effects in these patients. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Showa University Karasuyama Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 4 key findings →
Participants: 106 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients with poststroke major depression have a greater severity of cognitive impairment than nondepressed patients even when matched for size and location of stroke lesion. 4 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Gut microbiota can influence human brain function and behavior. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
224 subjects progressed to dementia (SCD=38 (9.72%), MCI=186 (50.8%)). 5 key findings →
Participants: 391 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In patients with cognitive impairment due to diverse causes, the HTS might occur regardless of MCI versus dementia status and across different etiologies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 121 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 219 completing participants (mean age 73.5 years), the mean SUS score was 82.0 (95% CI: 80.3-83.8), with 84% exceeding the usability threshold (SUS score > 68). 5 key findings →
Participants: 241 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Data collection began in March 2024. So far 562 people completed a pre-screening online questionnaire, with 190 passing pre-screening of whom 54% met eligibility criteria. 5 key findings →
Participants: 24 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 64 patients were enrolled in this ongoing real-world study. 5 key findings →
Participants: 64 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The cognitive assessment protocol of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) was designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of cognitive assessment measures that might be valuable additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) or other concise batteries used in antidementia drug trials.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains, and their achievements were stable after 6 months. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results underline the importance of social interaction and a positive mood for a higher QoL. 4 key findings →
Participants: 115 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Trans-diagnostic, domain- or symptom-focused approaches have been heralded as advancing psychiatric research, but relatively few clinical research programmes have been undertaken to leverage their potential. 1 key finding →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a considerable delay in the diagnosis of dementia, which may reduce the effectiveness of available treatments. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Careful design and user-testing should be made a priority in the development of computerized assessment interfaces, as well as reevaluating the cognitive assessment process to minimize patient anxiety and discomfort. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, this review corroborates the promising utilization of LLMs to positively impact dementia care by boosting cognitive abilities, enriching social interaction, and supporting caregivers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the MCI group, age (B = -0.37, p<0.001) and current daily use of computer-based devices (B = 5.85, p<0.001) were associated with the number of correct cancellations of the e-CT. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine participants, at two-time points. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For the reproducibility, identical P-values and slope estimates were found with both digital biomarkers and neuropsychological test measures between the previous and current studies. 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events