30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
General baseline characteristics of the study population were mean (standard deviation) age, 58.1 (8.8) years; 47% women. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Visually impaired individuals were more likely to develop incident dementia, with a progressively greater risk among those with worse visual acuity. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 117,187 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data extraction and synthesis This analysis involved random-effects meta-analyses on group-level study results of clinical data and systematic review of the neuroimaging literature. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 591 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Convergent evidence across the literature supports the use of resting-state connectivity as a biomarker of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,363 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The disorder has been associated with underlying neuropathological features of Alzheimer's disease, but large-scale biomarker and neuropathological studies are scarce. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,092 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that high quality observational data can provide relevant evidence on unintended effects of statins to add to the evidence from RCTs. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
More than 25% of the U.S. population aged ≥ 65 years has diabetes mellitus (hereafter referred to as diabetes),1 and the aging of the overall population is a significant driver of the diabetes epidemic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Given the impact of discrepant thresholds on tau positivity rates, biomarker staging, and eligibility for future clinical treatment trials, recommendations are offered to select cut-point derivations based on the unique goals and priorities of different studies. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 6,536 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventy-one studies were included for review, representing a total of 6757 patients (2350 AD, 793 MCI, 2902 healthy controls (HC), and 841 others with a range of other neurodegenerative diagnoses). 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 6,757 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 15 eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 109 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In both amyloid-positive cohorts (ADNI [age = 75.99±7.69] and A05 [age = 74.03±9.03]), cognitive-domain-specific tau-PET outperformed global and temporal-lobe tau-PET for predicting future cognitive decline in episodic memory, language, executive functioning, and visuospatial abilities. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 121 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Based on this meta-analytic survey of the literature, increased amyloid burden has small but nontrivial associations with specific domains of cognitive performance in individuals who are currently cognitively normal. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,140 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Brain networks or 'connectomes' include a minority of highly connected hub nodes that are functionally valuable, because their topological centrality supports integrative processing and adaptive behaviours. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 56 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
By aggregating results across samples, this study advances knowledge on the association between personality and neuropathology. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,015 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that accounts for nearly 70% of the more than 46 million dementia cases estimated worldwide. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 112 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thinning of retinal layers, measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT), is associated with some neurodegenerative disorders such as established Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 622 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mounting evidence in adults without AD indicates that females exhibit higher tau deposition than age-matched males, particularly in the setting of elevated β-amyloid (Aβ), but the evidence for sex differences in tau accumulation rates is inconclusive. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,376 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Task-free functional magnetic resonance imaging (TF-fMRI) has great potential for advancing the understanding and treatment of neurologic illness. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 892 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
DTI may be a promising biomarker in parkinsonian syndromes and have a future role in differential diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 958 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventeen studies with cognitively impaired Parkinson's disease patients were included consisting of 222 Parkinson's disease patients with mild cognitive impairment, 68 patients with Parkinson's disease dementia, 289 cognitively unimpaired Parkinson's disease patients and 353 healthy controls. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The body of evidence for biomarkers is not large and is variable across the different types of biomarkers. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 70 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a remarkable challenge for healthcare in the 21st century. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results highlight the clinical variability of PSP and the high prevalence of phenotypes other than Richardson's syndrome. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 206 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at-risk of developing dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 430 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with parkinsonism pose a diagnostic challenge. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,680 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events