27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. 4 key findings →
Participants: 577 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both verbal and visual computerized memory tests showed comparable diagnostic performance to the paper-and-pencil tests. 1 key finding →
Participants: 18,450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains due to the training, and these effects decreased after 12 months. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MoCA was administered to 274 patients from 2 prospective hospital-based cohort studies in Germany (n = 125) and France (n = 149). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 125 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vitamins and minerals play multiple functions within the central nervous system which may help to maintain brain health and optimal cognitive functioning. 4 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although brain neuroinflammation may play an instrumental role in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease, its actual impact on disease progression remains controversial, being reported as either detrimental or protective. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate
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 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 →