Dementia risk may be increased among people with HIV with certain cancers, including AIDS-defining cancers. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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.
Although advances have been made in dementia symptom management, early detection during stages when interventions are most effective remains a significant challenge. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Parkinson’s disease (PD) progression is highly heterogeneous. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The observed protective effect may be explained by vascular and neuroprotective mechanisms unique to PDE5 inhibitors. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 10,489 participants with incident MCI, the mean age at the incident MCI wave was 70.6 years (SD = 11.53), and 56.6% were female. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 10,489 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The neurodegenerative processes underlying Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) begin years before clinical diagnosis, motivating scalable approaches for earlier identification. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Performance variability precedes measurable linear decline across PD-risk stratified groups. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In older adults with HFpEF, finerenone conferred renal benefit without a detectable short-term cognitive signal. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,660 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Longitudinal clinical cohorts contain heterogeneous progression patterns that are obscured by coarse diagnostic labels. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) provides a comprehensive multimodal neuroimaging resource for studying aging and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
PTGDS followed a biphasic astrocytic trajectory with a statistically resolved donor-level inflection (quadratic term −2.27, p = 0.006; vertex at pseudo-progression score 0.47, bootstrap 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.53). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Using two large-scale longitudinal datasets covering more than 75,000 patients or stays and 7.8 million clinical observations—spanning emergency vasopressor titration in sepsis (MIMIC- IV; 6,243 ICU admissions drawn from 73,141 encounters) and serial cognitive assessment in Alzheimer’s disease (ADNI; 2,262 longitudinal participants)—we train a 13-family computa- tional model zoo and perform a novel experiment: auditing whether clinician and AI treatment decisions jointly or individually match the subsequent patient trajectory, and testing whether cooperation between the two actors resolves their disagreements. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 75,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Age-bias-corrected brain-age gap was most consistently associated with reduced diffusion-derived microstructural integrity and structural-network organization across cohorts. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,093 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The phenotypic measures “Slope” and “dMMSE/dt” consistently showed strong performance across a range of data distributions, while “Time-to-MMSE10” was particularly effective in cohorts with a higher proportion of individuals experiencing severe cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Chronological age and plasma p⍰tau217 each predicts cognitive decline, but whether their prognostic associations interact is unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,741 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Accurate long-term forecasting of cognitive trajectories across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum is essential for early intervention, personalized prognosis, patient stratification, and clinical trial enrichment. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 300 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 →