A total of 325 participants enrolled and received study drug. 5 key findings →
Participants: 320 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In one of the largest brain MRI studies to date, we used tensor-based morphometry (TBM) to create 3D maps of structural atrophy in 676 subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy elderly controls, scanned as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 4 key findings →
Participants: 676 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of the study was to compare the long-term efficacy of high versus low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), applied bilaterally over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), on cognitive function and cortical excitability of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
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
As one of the earliest structures to degenerate in Alzheimer's disease (AD), the hippocampus is the target of many studies of factors that influence rates of brain degeneration in the elderly. 4 key findings →
Participants: 490 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
There are few validated fluid biomarkers in frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 469 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The extent to which cerebral atrophy in Alzheimer's disease changes with time is unknown. 4 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The concept of cognitive reserve is proposed to explain the mismatch between the degree of pathological changes and their clinical manifestations and has been used to help understand the variation in the rate of cognitive decline and the development of dementias. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A total of 533 patients with AD at early stages (mean Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 21/30 at entry) were recruited and followed semiannually for up to 13.1 years (mean 3) in five University-based AD centers in the United States and European Union. 4 key findings →
Participants: 533 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Apathy is an important and distressing behavioural symptom in Alzheimer's disease and in various neuropsychiatric disorders. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 306 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Knowledge on survival in dementia is crucial for patients and public health planning. 4 key findings →
Participants: 15,209 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) is a powerful method to map the 3D profile of brain degeneration in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive functions and self-reported drinking habits were assessed at 2-year intervals over an average of 7 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
No adverse events occurred over the study period. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Personalized repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the precuneus (PC) is emerging as a new non-invasive therapeutic approach in treating Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Combined rTMS and cognitive training may improve the cognitive status of AD patients, with TMS-induced cortical plasticity at baseline serving as predictor of therapeutic outcome for this intervention, and potential mechanism of action. 2 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, individuals improved on all C3 measures over 12 months (β = 0.23, 95% CI [0.21-0.25], p < 0.001), but improvement over the first 3 months was greatest (β = 0.68, 95% CI [0.59-0.77], p < 0.001), suggesting stronger PE over initial repeated exposures. 4 key findings →
Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Remote monitoring of cognition holds the promise to facilitate case-finding in clinical care and the individual detection of cognitive impairment in clinical and research settings. 1 key finding →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
57/100
A MPT model of the MST can detect individuals with AD prior to cognitive decline, making it a potentially useful tool for screening and monitoring older adults during the asymptomatic phase of AD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 200 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Significant differences in AD biomarkers were observed among different groups. 5 key findings →
Participants: 238 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
57/100
We evaluated a digital cognitive assessment platform, Philips IntelliSpace Cognition, in a case-control study of patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal (CN) older adults. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings of this protocol will provide information regarding the effects of acupuncture on MCI. 2 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The following four themes emerged from participants' feedback: (1) healthy lifestyle and behavioral changes, (2) a sense of self-awareness through introspection, (3) value in coach support, and (4) a desire for a change in program format (eg, frequency). 5 key findings →
Participants: 74 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CERAD total scores were obtained by summing scores from the individual CERAD subtests (excluding the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]) into a total composite (maximum score = 100). 4 key findings →
Participants: 424 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
According to all previous literature, they are not associated with mortality. 4 key findings →
Participants: 456 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 →