31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The relationship between sleep quality, neurofilament light chain (NFL), and cognitive impairment, including the potential effect of plasma NFL in this association, remains unclear. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 640 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study found a reciprocal association between gait speed and global or domain-specific cognition. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 511 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundWith the changing demographic landscape in most countries worldwide, early identification of cognitive impairment in multicultural populations is increasingly relevant. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 187 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The complexity of neurodegenerative disorders necessitates an integrative approach that incorporates morphological, functional, and molecular biomarkers. 3 key findings →
Participants: 279 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
TabCAT tests showed good convergent validity with traditional pen-and-paper tests. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia risk was significantly higher in patients with epilepsy compared with that of controls (IRR: 3.65; 95% CI: 3.14-4.24), especially within the first 2 years post-diagnosis (aHR: 5.42; 95% CI: 4.30-6.83), peaking between 8 and 10 years (aHR: 8.25; 95% CI: 3.15-21.5). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,740 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There were 16,708 eligible encounters during the 12-month study period (June 2022-May 2023). 5 key findings →
Participants: 236 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, there were 126 participants (106 [84.1%] women); mean (SD) age was 44.13 (12.71) years, mean years of interpreting experience was 8.57 (8.48) years, and 106 of 120 (88.3%) lived in an urban area. 5 key findings →
Participants: 126 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundIndividuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of developing both vascular and Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 128 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Selected clinical features may identify patients with suspected RPD who are likely to continue to decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 248 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After expert panel review, only 50/67 patients met consensus criteria for DLB, 26/151 controls had a reduced MoCA, and 120/151 controls had a normal MoCA. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 151 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundPeriodontitis is a chronic bacterial infection that elicits systemic inflammation. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We will assess the utility of auditory perceptual tests, both alone and combined with blood-based biomarkers (pTau217 and NfL), for diagnosis and prognosis in individuals with cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 600 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the complex realm of cognitive disorders, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are the two most prevalent dementia types, presenting entangled symptoms yet requiring distinct treatment approaches. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These lessons emphasize the importance of ensuring tests are feasible across both high-income countries and LMICs, maintaining consistency within studies and over time, and designing comprehensive cognitive batteries for improved measurement precision of general and domain-specific phenotypes. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It is generally assumed that dementia affects the quality of optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 112 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Providing a dementia diagnosis is challenging, especially in primary care and considering diverse patient backgrounds. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a wide range of behavioural changes across FTD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study included 685 patients who underwent MDS-cognitive and 3,630 patients assessed using OASIS. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 685 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
No model terms met the a priori cut-off beyond the base model, including device type, response input source (e.g. mouse, etc.), or session interference. 5 key findings →
Participants: 167 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study utilized an initial dataset of 188,700 participant records from NACC. 5 key findings →
Participants: 16,309 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This comprehensive review examines the integration of Quantitative Electroencephalography (qEEG) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 890 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proportion of false negatives from FDG-PET ranged from 11-55%. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 112 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 394 participants, 35 % had preoperative CI on the MoCA, 15 % on the AD8, and 12 % on the Mini-Cog. 5 key findings →
Participants: 394 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CDR-SB and MoCA scores showed strong inverse correlation (Spearman's ρ = -0.68; p < 0.001). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 23,717 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 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.
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