30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
During a 7-year median follow-up, type 2 diabetes was associated with the highest risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06 to 1.31), followed by hypertension and hyperlipidemia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results indicated that residence location, alcohol consumption, life satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and education level are key factors influencing the risk of MCI among older adults with functional disability. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundPatients with dementia face driving difficulties and, at some point, cease driving. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Diabetes is a significant modifiable risk factor for cognitive dysfunction. 1 key finding →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 396 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) presents a significant global health challenge, necessitating accurate and early prediction methods for effective intervention and treatment planning. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by the pathological accumulation of amyloid plaques and hyperphosphorylated tau proteins, leading to disruptions in synaptic transmission and neural circuit alterations. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Statistical analysis revealed a trend toward more impaired prefrontal FC with declining cognitive function. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The paper discusses according to prevailing diagnostic systems and algorithms, which cognitive domains that are relevant to investigate, which tests that may be relevant, what kind of norms have satisfactory quality, which cut-off scores do best balance sensitivity and specificity in a neurodiagnostic context, and what kind of conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from neuropsychological findings. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In the CN group, cerebral microbleed (CMB) progression was associated with the decline in language function (p < 0.05), and deep white matter hyperintensity (WMH) progression was associated with a decline in memory function (p < 0.05). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 432 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
< 0.0001) were significantly higher for the MCI cohort. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A one‐point ALI increase was associated with MCI conversion odds by 15%. 1 key finding →
Participants: 385 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
-values compared to gait features. Linear regression analysis indicated that turn dynamics had stronger correlations with executive function and working memory, suggesting a more pronounced relationship between cognitive performance and turn features than gait variables. 3 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The left inferior parietal lobule (IPL)_6_5 (rostroventral area 39) showed the best ability to discriminate between patients with AD and those with CN (AUC = 0.688). 5 key findings →
Participants: 662 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CNN-BiLSTM-Attention model demonstrated relatively promising predictive performance (AUC: 0.7317), with moderately high sensitivity (0.6902) and a high negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.9414. 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,626 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that visual function plays a crucial role in the cognitive and functional abilities of patients with MCI. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The probability of reversion increased from 2% at baseline to a maximum of 8% by year 10 before gradual decline thereafter. 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Controlling for demographic/health variables, individuals with aMCI, though not naMCI, showed a higher likelihood of hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia compared to cognitively normal counterparts, though no differences between aMCI/naMCI. 5 key findings →
Participants: 8,737 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To the Editor: With the aging of the population, the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has increased significantly. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified that the APOE4 genotype affected ΔHV in females. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 73 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) represents a transitional stage between normal aging and dementia, often considered critical for dementia prevention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At baseline, SCDp were older, had a higher prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and had worst performance on tests related to processing speed, verbal fluency, visual memory, verbal memory, and executive functioning. 4 key findings →
Participants: 450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a complex, progressive, and irreversible neurodegenerative disorder marked by cognitive decline and memory loss. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a condition characterized by noticeable deficits in memory retrieval or other cognitive domains than the individuals with the same age but do not significantly interfere with daily functioning. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this study is to build and validate a model based on structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) to predict the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 240 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid‐reactive T cell polyfunctional response distinguishes MCI from normal aging and could serve as a novel MCI biomarker. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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