Atypical antipsychotics are associated with an increased risk of stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The direct visualization of retinal vessels provides a unique opportunity to study cerebral small vessel disease, because these vessels share many features. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 490 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Subclinical structural brain abnormalities in high-functioning older adults can increase the risk of developing physical disabilities and declining in motor performance. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,450 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults with dementia who take atypical antipsychotics have a similar risk of ischaemic stroke to those taking typical antipsychotics. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cerebral small-vessel disease is common in older people and may contribute to the development of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 832 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although internal factors explain most about the poor nutritional status of aged residents in nursing homes, the factors related to nutritional care need further investigation to clarify their role in maintaining the nutritional status of aged residents. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The majority of clinical trials of N-methyl d-aspartate antagonists have been conducted in the fields of stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI) and dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 9,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Inflammatory processes may be involved in the pathogenesis of cerebral small-vessel disease, in particular, the development of white matter lesions. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,033 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In nondemented older persons, executive function is independently associated with tasks of lower extremity function that require high attentional demand. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Interactions between endothelial cells and mural cells (pericytes and vascular smooth muscle cells) in the blood vessel wall have recently come into focus as central processes in the regulation of vascular formation, stabilization, remodeling, and function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Memantine is also reported to have beneficial effects in other CNS disorders viz., Parkinson's disease (PD), stroke, epilepsy, CNS trauma, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), drug dependence and chronic pain. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In contrast to traditional neuroncentric views of Alzheimer's disease (AD), recent findings indicate that neurovascular dysfunction contributes to cognitive decline and neurodegeneration in AD. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 27,380 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 →