27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Psychotic symptoms are common and persistent in patients with Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,749 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
MCI was prevalent in 24.7% of participants at baseline. 2 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 3,673 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer disease was responsible for 4.9% of the deaths in this elderly cohort. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,670 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A registry of the University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Satellite. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 371 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These cross-sectional data provide evidence that tHcy is a risk factor for white matter damage. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 259 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prevalence of dementia subtypes in China is comparable with that in Western countries. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 99 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
NIH Conferences21 June 2005National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Management of Menopause-Related SymptomsFREENIH State-of-the-Science Panel*NIH State-of-the-Science Panel*Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_1-200506210-00117 SectionsAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus and state-of-the-science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and the morning of the third. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is considerable variation in the phenotypic appearance of individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD), which may translate into differences in disease progression in addition to underlying disease etiology. 5 key findings →
Participants: 162 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings support the pathological evidence that underlying variations in MAPT could contribute to disease pathogenesis by subtle effects on gene expression and/or splicing. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Understanding variability in conceptions of dementia in multiethnic populations is important to improve care and guide research. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The long-term objective of the Rush Memory and Aging Project is to identify the postmortem indices linking genetic and environmental risk factors to the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although there may be some mild functional changes associated particularly with the MCI-memory impaired subtype, individuals with MCI do not appear to under-report their functional status as can often been seen in persons with dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Parkinson disease (PD) and Alzheimer disease (AD), the two most common neurodegenerative disorders in American adults, are of purely genetic origin in a minority of cases and appear in most instances to arise through interactions among genetic and environmental factors. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The IADL-E is a reliable, sensitive and responsive scale of functional abilities useful in dementia screening in a socioculturally heterogeneous population. 2 key findings →
Participants: 240 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All participants conveyed striking similarities of thought about normalization of cognitive symptoms until one critical event, usually relocation, precipitated family awareness that an elder's behavior was not the result of "normal aging." 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The purpose of this study was to explore the phenomenon of dementia caregiving in an ethnically diverse group of Latino caregivers, with the goal of identifying cultural influences on the caregiving experience. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These findings may facilitate the timely and efficient management of CDAD in nursing home patients. 2 key findings →
Participants: 28 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Researchers on genetic and environmental influences on risk for Alzheimer's disease must be prepared for the growing ethnic and racial diversity of our participants. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was a trend toward increased risk of being assaulted in the last year associated with being in a non-SCU facility. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In 2002, the 10 leading causes of death were (in rank order) Diseases of heart; Malignant neoplasms; Cerebrovascular diseases; Chronic lower respiratory diseases; Accidents (unintentional injuries); Diabetes mellitus; Influenza and pneumonia; Alzheimer's disease; Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis; and Septicemia and accounted for about 79 percent of all deaths occurring in the United States. 4 key findings →
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 →