27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, 2 study nurses using the CAM-ICU had sensitivities of 100% and 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99). 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Progressive dementia was detected by PET with a sensitivity of 93% (191/206) and a specificity of 76% (59/78). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 146 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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
The DRS-R-98, a 16-item clinician-rated scale with 13 severity items and 3 diagnostic items, was validated against the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) among five diagnostic groups (N=68): delirium, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, and other. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Forty-three patients with PD were demented at follow-up evaluation, equivalent to an incidence rate of 95.3 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 68.2 to 122.0). 2 key findings →
Participants: 171 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Hippocampal atrophy is not specific for AD but is also seen in semantic dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
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
Diagnostic criteria for dementia have improved since the 1994 practice parameter. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Delirium occurred in 239 (9%) of 2721 observations or 131 (16%) of 797 patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 797 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study suggests that the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist can easily be applied by a clinician or a nurse in a busy critical care setting to screen all patients even when communication is compromised. 3 key findings →
Participants: 93 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Mini-Mental State (MMS) is a brief structured test of cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Shunting INPH is associated with an approximately 29% rate of significant improvement and a 6% significant complication rate. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We sought to determine the course of the preclinical episodic memory deficit in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a focal dementia characterized by an isolated and gradual dissolution of language function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The development of novel treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), aimed at ameliorating symptoms and modifying disease processes, increases the need for early diagnosis. 1 key finding →
Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Progressive atrophy was revealed in presymptomatic individuals, with posterior cingulate and neocortical temporoparietal cortical losses, and medial temporal-lobe atrophy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mean age was 74.5 years and 65.5% of them were illiterate. 1 key finding →
Participants: 255 Evidence: low
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →