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
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
Individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have an increased risk of developing dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 100 Evidence: high
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
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the main cause of death and disability in the United States in people younger than 35 years old and is a common cause of wartime injuries. 1 key finding →
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
Multidomain interventions have small but consistent beneficial effects on cognitive measures, suggesting the potential to reduce cognitive impairment and dementia risk. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 23,209 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Most plasma proteomic studies in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compare cases and controls cross-sectionally, leaving unresolved which AD-associated proteins mark diagnostic states and which are linked to disease progression. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 13,449 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →