Out of 796 participants, 793 completed the study. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 796 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Compared to controls, the AD/VaD patient group had a significantly higher WML volume (p < .001), reduced global CBF (p < .001), greater brain atrophy, and worse ADAS-Cog scores (p < .001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study aimed to develop a novel classification model using wearable two-channel electroencephalography (EEG) data to differentiate between patients with dementia and normal controls (NCs). 2 key findings →
Participants: 54 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
< 0.001) for both measures. When distinguishing NC from MCI/DM, the CIST outperformed the K-MMSE, demonstrating a higher AUC (0.869 vs. 0.842) and F1-score (0.697 vs. 0.409). 3 key findings →
Participants: 100 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
43/100
Long-term PM exposure, particularly PM 10 , may contribute to increased AD/ADRD susceptibility, potentially through inflammation-related pathways. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The REMINDER program contributes to dementia prevention research by combining cognitive, lifestyle, and psychosocial strategies within a group-based format, aiming to foster long-term adherence to brain-protective behaviors. 4 key findings →
Participants: 270 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the global population rapidly aging, dementia has emerged as a major public health concern. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The advent of disease-modifying treatments and risk-reduction strategies in the clinic have increased the demand for biomarkers for early disease detection, prediction of clinical course of disease, individual risk prediction and monitoring of treatment effects. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The 2nd SAMS score were higher than the 1st SAMS score in some participants, on the other hand, the intraclass correlation coefficient was good. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this study, we developed a newly designed μPAD for CL immunoassays, leveraging smartphone-based image capture, valve-regulated reaction process, and app-driven result analysis to enable fully automated detection. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Monitoring and assessing the progression of symptoms in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, are critical for improving patient outcomes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 138 (27%) eligible patients (46% female, age 61 ± 8 years, Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 22 ± 6), 75 (54%) underwent genetic testing. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individual cognitive profiles of patients with Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) are highly heterogeneous, suggesting possible biological subtypes. 1 key finding →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multivariable linear regression analysis indicated that being married (β = 0.6, p-value = 0.02) and being a young adult (β = 0.52, p-value = 0.04) were significantly associated with better neurocognitive performance. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 59 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AcTau174 levels were elevated in all dementia groups compared to controls, with a stepwise increase from controls to MCI-AD (2.2-fold) to AD dementia (3.5-fold, Figure 1). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 234 patients, 143 (61.1%) were Aβ-positive. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 234 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The DET framework has achieved superior performance on the classification task across all the evaluation metrics compared to the traditional machine learning based methods, as demonstrated in Table 1. 4 key findings →
Participants: 106 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
demonstrated high goodness of fit and satisfied all validation metrics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study highlights the potential of integrating 18 F-FDG-PET with CSF biomarkers to improve the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of AD, emphasizing the complexity and regional specificity of biomarker interactions in neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
Participants: 90 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q), and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale plus National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center-Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration module (NACC-FTLD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 168 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Emerging evidence indicates that globus pallidus (GP) function can be modulated by orexin-A in movement disorders, while its role in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) remains unclear. 4 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 42 participants (median age: 71 years, 66.7% female), 26 (61.9%) were classified as progressors. 5 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive assessment and analysis of plasma biomarkers are lower-cost options for the early assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Participants: 327 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 156 patients were clinically diagnosed with dementia based on the 2011 NIA-AA criteria, regardless of specific disease etiology, and all exhibited significant brain atrophy on anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), indicating neuronal injury (N+). 5 key findings →
Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Glutamic acid (GA), a crucial neurotransmitter, plays a significant role in brain function, muscle health, and various neurological disorders. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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