27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The current study is a controlled clinical investigation of two nonpharmacological treatments of depression in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study investigated cerebral glucose metabolism in very early Alzheimer's disease, before a clinical diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease is possible, using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. 3 key findings →
Participants: 66 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based volumetric measurements of medial temporal lobe (MTL) structures can discriminate between normal elderly control subjects and patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) of moderate to advanced severity. 1 key finding →
Participants: 94 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The commonly used criteria for diagnosis can differ by a factor of 10 in the number of subjects classified as having dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our goal was to ascertain the involvement of the temporal lobe in the preclinical (not yet diagnosable) stages of dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT) by using MRI-derived volumes. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 22 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease is progressive and irreversible, but pharmacologic therapies for cognitive impairment and nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments for the behavioral problems associated with dementia can enhance quality of life. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In order to observe changes owing to aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the volumes of subdivisions of the hippocampus and the number of neurons of the hippocampal formation, 18 normal brains from subjects who died of nonneurological causes and had no history of long-term illness or dementia (ten of these brains comprised the aged control group) and 13 AD brains were analyzed. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In recent years, patients who are at high risk for developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) have become a focus of study. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The FBI appears to be a useful diagnostic instrument and a method to operate the behavioral criteria of FLD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The cognitive assessment protocol of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) was designed to evaluate the reliability and validity of cognitive assessment measures that might be valuable additions to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) or other concise batteries used in antidementia drug trials. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This report summarizes the consensus recommendations of a panel of neuropathologists from the United States and Europe to improve the postmortem diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Prior to any evaluation of morphologic brain changes, a decision must be made whether a given alteration is associated with aging or with disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →