27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to synthesize the vast and heterogeneous biomedical literature, yet their potential to support drug target prioritization in complex diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) remains largely unexplored. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A RAG-based LLM pipeline without structured ICD codes improved dementia ascertainment from EHR data compared with ICD-based rules and keyword-based filtering. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
EOD incidence peaked at 4-5% among beneficiaries with and without cancer. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia risk may be increased among people with HIV with certain cancers, including AIDS-defining cancers. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of dementia and Parkinson’s disease in Russia varies widely depending on diagnostic method, age group, and study design. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although advances have been made in dementia symptom management, early detection during stages when interventions are most effective remains a significant challenge. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Standardized cognitive and functional assessments, such as those in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set (UDS), are central to detecting and monitoring Alzheimer’s disease, yet their administration and scoring depend on trained examiners who record and score responses by hand. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-β deposition begins in the earliest preclinical stages of Alzheimer's disease, long before cognitive decline is detectable by standard clinical assessments, which are often limited by ceiling effects and create a need for non-invasive, scalable markers. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from spontaneous speech remains a clinically significant challenge. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) detection from spoken language has advanced considerably with the rise of large pre-trained speech and language models, including wav2vec 2.0, BERT, generative LLMs, and emerging audio-LLMs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a potentially reversible cause of gait impairment, cognitive decline, and urinary dysfunction in older adults, yet identifying patients most likely to benefit from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion remains a major diagnostic challenge. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Engaging 55 research staff across 25 sites and 3 physician-reviewers, this study is the first to demonstrate feasibility of a VANE as an efficient neurological examination model enabled by commonly used devices. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent research has revealed that linguistic features are effective digital markers for the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Parkinson’s disease (PD) progression is highly heterogeneous. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The MCI group had the most surprising findings—although they were cognitively similar to the control group, they were less physically active than the AD group and had the worst sleep efficiency. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean age was 66.8 years and 21% had CI. 5 key findings →
Participants: 787 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is increasing in prevalence, and early detection is essential for timely care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Spontaneous speech acoustics capture p-tau217/APOE-defined AD risk despite preserved cognition, supporting speech as a scalable, biologically grounded biomarker for preclinical AD risk stratification. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In cognitively unimpaired older adults, associations between sleep disturbances and psycho-affective symptoms differ according to Aβ status. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 131 Evidence: moderate
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 →