Evidence from well-planned, representative epidemiological surveys is scarce in many regions. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,526 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Patients with the repeat expansion had significantly more co-morbid FTD than patients without the repeat (50%vs 12%), and a distinct pattern of non-motor cortex changes on high-resolution 3 T magnetic resonance structural neuroimaging. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 49 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
67/100
The evidence base for treating a range of nonmotor symptoms in PD has grown substantially in recent years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
People who had recovered from COVID-19, including those no longer reporting symptoms, exhibited significant cognitive deficits versus controls when controlling for age, gender, education level, income, racial-ethnic group, pre-existing medical disorders, tiredness, depression and anxiety. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Periodontitis is common in the elderly and may become more common in Alzheimer's disease because of a reduced ability to take care of oral hygiene as the disease progresses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We conducted a genome-wide association study among 2,323 individuals with sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and 9,013 control subjects and evaluated all SNPs with P < 1.0 x 10(-4) in a second, independent cohort of 2,532 affected individuals and 5,940 controls. 1 key finding →
Participants: 2,323 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Worldwide costs of dementia are enormous and still inequitably distributed. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest a higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease dementia in older individuals and a lower prevalence of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease in younger groups than previously estimated 2 . 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Parkinson disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder, affecting >1% of the population ≥65 years of age and with a prevalence set to double by 2030. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
Dramatic global increases in future numbers of people with dementia have been predicted. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early onset hallucinations were significantly more common in pLBD than pAD (OR 0.069 [95% CI 0.012-0.397], p = 0.003) or mixed AD+LBD (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.010-0.771], p = 0.028) and there was a greater increase in the odds of hallucinations over time in pAD and AD+LBD than pLBD such that there was was no difference in the prevalence of late-onset hallucinations between pLBD, pAD or AD+LBD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 37 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The weighted prevalence of dementia based on the 10/66 Diagnostic Research Group (DRG) criteria was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3-10.7) in the WiSE 2023 study compared to 10% in the WiSE 2013 study (95% CI: 8.7-11.5). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,010 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
56/100
Trisomy 21, the presence of a supernumerary chromosome 21, results in a collection of clinical features commonly known as Down syndrome (DS). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 360,014 individuals with psoriasis and 1,799,617 without, psoriasis was associated with a small increased risk of all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08; absolute rate difference 24 per 100,000 person-years). 5 key findings →
Participants: 360,014 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
48/100
length of stay, need for a higher level of care, and mortality after discharge in patients with and without delirium. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 33 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Where “Free full text” comes from
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
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
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.
- Journal tier up to 10 pts
- Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
- Study design up to 12 pts
- Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
- Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
- How recent up to 5 pts
- Sample size up to 4 pts
- Effect reported up to 3 pts
- Studied in people up to 3 pts
- Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
- Times cited up to 7 pts
- Citations per year up to 5 pts
- Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
- Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
- Still being cited up to 4 pts
- Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
- Institution's track record up to 3 pts
- Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
- Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
- Free to read up to 2 pts
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.
What this library is — and isn't
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 →