27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Greater diversity of social participation was associated with better long-term cognitive maintenance among older adults with hypertension and/or diabetes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 547 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recruitment (88.0%) and protocol fidelity (100%) met or exceeded prespecified progression criteria, whereas retention and follow-up data availability were 59.1% (13/22), slightly below the predefined 60% criterion. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Forty participants completed the study (intervention, n = 21; control, n = 19). 4 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Biological definitions of neuronal α-synuclein disease are advancing diagnosis beyond traditional clinical syndromes, but the trajectories preceding dementia and the influence of concomitant Alzheimer pathology remain uncertain. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,543 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Population ageing is accelerating globally, with a rising burden of neurocognitive disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. 5 key findings →
Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From 12,770 records, 3,636 duplicates were removed and 9,134 titles and abstracts were screened. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Early, scalable detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains a global health priority, but non-invasive biomarkers that capture network-level dysfunction during standardized cognitive challenge remain limited. 1 key finding →
Participants: 13 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When stable individual differences are accounted for, depressive symptoms emerge as a stronger within-person temporal predictor of cognitive decline than physical activity. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study 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 →