27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our analysis suggests that previous estimates of dementia burden, based on smaller datasets, might have underestimated the burden of dementia in China. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 340,247 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
At baseline, significantly higher Aβ burdens were noted in patients with AD (2·27, SD 0·43) and those with MCI (1·94, 0·64) than in healthy controls (1·38, 0·39). 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 200 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Relative to a control condition, we found moderate-quality evidence showing a small to moderate effect of CT on our first primary outcome, composite measure of global cognition at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.62), and high-quality evidence showing a moderate effect on the secondary outcome of verbal semantic fluency (SMD 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.81) at end of treatment, with these gains retained in the medium term (3 to 12 months post treatment). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 653 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
High levels of caregiver burden are present in a large proportion of caregivers of people with dementia and this increases over time for those without services. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 720 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Music Interventions for Dementia and Depression in Elderly care was a large, multinational, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to examine the effects of group music therapy, recreational choir singing, or both compared with standard care. 2 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,021 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The following 2 regions for tau burden were identified: the entorhinal cortex, which exhibits early signs of tauopathy, and the inferior temporal region, which is more closely associated with AD-related pathologic mechanisms. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 133 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 62 caregivers approached, 60 enrolled (96.7%), and 54 completed the study (90% retention). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this Delphi survey study, international experts reached consensus on a range of criteria for referral to specialist palliative care. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebral microbleeds (microbleeds) are small, punctuate hypointense lesions seen in T2* Gradient-Recall Echo (GRE) and Susceptibility-Weighted (SWI) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) sequences, corresponding to areas of hemosiderin breakdown products from prior microscopic hemorrhages. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
High SMD is a harbinger of greater rates of clinical progression in preclinical AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease is the leading cause of dementia in the elderly and is defined by two pathological hallmarks; the accumulation of aggregated amyloid beta and excessively phosphorylated Tau proteins. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterised by the gradual onset of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Participants were distributed across various regions of Australia: seven interviews from inner regional Australia, five interviews from outer regional Australia, and twenty-one interviews from metropolitan areas. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In known-group validity analysis, the EQ-HWB instruments performed similarly to the C-DEMQOL in terms of effect sizes across a range of variables and slightly better than the CarerQol on some variables. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Six key themes emerged: (1) challenges in daily care; (2) strain from behavioral and sleep disruptions; (3) difficulties in seeking help; (4) personal sacrifices of caregivers; (5) emotional burdens associated with caregiving, including comorbidity concerns of PwD; (6) limited dementia knowledge and essential caregiving skills. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants found MATCH acceptable (combined AES median score of 28, range 25-34) and useful (SUS median score of 73.5, range 55-100). 5 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 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 →