27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among 34 349 participants, 26 088 who self-reported Black or White race, were free of stroke and dementia, and had covariate data at or before the first cognitive assessment were included for analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 349 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Incidence rates for AD in the BLSA are consistent with published rates in other studies. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,236 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) has developed brief, comprehensive, and reliable batteries of clinical and neuropsychological tests for assessment of patients with the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 350 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AD-signature cortical thinning in CN-AD converters in both samples was remarkably similar, about 0.2 mm (p 1). 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This article provides a classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and its 3 main variants to improve the uniformity of case reporting and the reliability of research results. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Many older adults living with dementia have not been formally diagnosed. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 3828 titles and abstracts and 434 full-text articles were reviewed, yielding 12 articles meeting eligibility criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 694 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The field of aging and dementia is focusing on the characterization of the earliest stages of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We determined incidence and future projections of dementia after AIDS onset in 492 homosexual men with AIDS in the Baltimore/Los Angeles sites of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, 64 of whom developed dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
APOE genotyping does not provide sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be used alone as a diagnostic test for Alzheimer's disease, but when used in combination with clinical criteria, it improves the specificity of the diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,188 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On the basis of their findings in this large community population of elderly people, the authors conclude that a wide range of dementia-associated mental and behavioral disturbances afflict the majority of individuals with dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,092 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prevalence of dementia was 8.3%. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,238,895 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Here, we present new criteria aimed to optimize early, sensitive, and specific clinical diagnosis of PSP on the basis of currently available evidence. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The new criteria for AD are presented in three documents. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fit of the models to the data was adequate for general cognitive performance (root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.03; comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94; standardised root mean residual (SRMR)=0.05), language (RMSEA=0.02; CFI=0.95; SRMR=0.05) and good for memory (RMSEA=0.05; CFI=0.99; SRMR=0.02) and executive functioning (RMSEA=0.03; CFI=0.98; SRMR=0.03). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,878 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed high levels of missing data in most cognitive test items - on average 13% and as high as 65%. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,755 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
An international group of clinical and basic scientists participated in the Frontotemporal Dementia and Pick's Disease Criteria Conference at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md, on July 7, 2000, to reassess clinical and neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prior HRT use is associated with reduced risk of AD, but there is no apparent benefit with current HRT use unless such use has exceeded 10 years. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The rural setting presented unique challenges including: low literacy rates (60.1% of participants had no schooling), diverse language use (primarily Giriama and Swahili), limited infrastructure (e.g., 44.8% of households had electricity), restrictive cultural norms that influenced data collection (e.g., in-home interviews were often conducted outdoors with destructions). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Undiagnosed dementia is common and associated with increased mortality, identifying a vulnerable population missed by current diagnostic pathways. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 13,142 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 65 participants (mean age = 79.4 years; women = 54%), 34% had dementia and 32% had CIND. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 65 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Full neuropsychological testing should then be performed to confirm a diagnosis of HIV dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →