27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The results from utilization of the UDS highlight the possibility for numerous research institutions to successfully collaborate, produce, and use standardized data collection instruments for over a decade. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,820 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In secondary analyses, the area under the curve (AUC) of [18F]flortaucipir SUVR was compared with 3 established magnetic resonance imaging measures (hippocampal volumes and AD signature and whole-brain cortical thickness), and sensitivity and specificity of [18F]flortaucipir in MCI due to AD vs non-AD neurodegenerative disorders were determined. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 719 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A robust association between some classes of anticholinergic drugs and future dementia incidence was observed. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 770 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In older cognitively unimpaired individuals (≥50 years), widespread, age-related elevated tau signal was seen among those with normal or abnormal amyloid status as compared to younger cognitively unimpaired individuals (30-49 years). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 31 624 156 adults discharged from French hospitals between 2008 and 2013, 1 109 343 were diagnosed with dementia and were included in the analyses. 2 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 156 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eight candidate predictors entered the prediction model: bulbar versus non-bulbar onset (univariable hazard ratio [HR] 1·71, 95% CI 1·63-1·79), age at onset (1·03, 1·03-1·03), definite versus probable or possible ALS (1·47, 1·39-1·55), diagnostic delay (0·52, 0·51-0·53), forced vital capacity (HR 0·99, 0·99-0·99), progression rate (6·33, 5·92-6·76), frontotemporal dementia (1·34, 1·20-1·50), and presence of a C9orf72 repeat expansion (1·45, 1·31-1·61), all p Interpretation We have developed an externally validated model to predict survival without tracheostomy and non-invasive ventilation for more than 23 h per day in European patients with ALS. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,936 Evidence: moderate
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
The Alzheimer center of the VU University Medical Center opened in 2000 and was initiated to combine both patient care and research. 2 key findings →
Participants: 6,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia worldwide, with the prevalence continuing to grow in part because of the aging world population. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The AD drug development pipeline is slightly larger in 2018 than in 2017. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The diagnosis and treatment of synucleinopathies such as Parkinson disease and dementia with Lewy bodies would be aided by the availability of assays for the pathogenic disease-associated forms of α-synuclein (αSyn D ) that are sufficiently sensitive, specific, and practical for analysis of accessible diagnostic specimens. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is a parasomnia that is characterized by loss of muscle atonia during REM sleep (known as REM sleep without atonia, or RSWA) and abnormal behaviours occurring during REM sleep, often as dream enactments that can cause injury. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Intravitam PET and postmortem studies have revealed a more pronounced cortical atrophy, elevated cortical and limbic Lewy body pathologies, higher Aβ and tau loads in cortex and striatum in DLB compared to PDD, and earlier cognitive defects in DLB. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurodegenerative diseases are a common cause of morbidity and cognitive impairment in older adults. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This influential 2018 paper proposed defining Alzheimer's disease by what is happening biologically in the brain (amyloid plaques, tau tangles, and neuron loss, measured by scans or spinal fluid tests) instead of by memory symptoms alone. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
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 →