27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Studies supporting the notion that physical activity and exercise can help alleviate the negative impact of age on the body and the mind abound. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this review we summarize the epidemiological, cross-sectional, and interventional studies examining the association between physical activity and brain volume, function, and risk for Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The NPI-D provides a reliable and valid measure of subjective caregiver distress in relation to neuropsychiatric symptoms measured by the NPI. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is often unrecognized and undocumented in private practice settings. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The findings support the idea that gait and balance assessment may augment the diagnostic evaluation of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration demonstrate great promise for the diagnosis and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We investigated the effect of baseline Aβ, sex, and APOE on longitudinal tau accumulation in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in clinically normal older adults. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
ANOVA and Bayesian t-test found no significant differences between the task when it was remotely self-administered by participants at home compared to when it was taken under controlled lab conditions. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Highly educated at-risk subjects had better cognition and higher grey matter volume at baseline; moreover, higher educational attainment was associated with slower loss of grey matter over time in mutation carriers. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Depression symptoms were observed in 33.8% of LTCF residents. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This cross-sectional study explores caregivers' perceptions of feeding/eating difficulties in persons living with dementia, their support provisions, and the associated burdens. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Adjusted for functional impairments and sociodemographic variables, neuropsychiatric symptoms were associated with more caregiver burden (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Less than half of the nursing home residents (39.2%) had advance directives and most (96.4%) had been completed by family surrogates. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To better characterize the potential biological mechanisms underlying insulin resistance (IR) and dementia, we derive cross-population and population specific polygenic scores [PSs] for fasting insulin and IR-related partitioned PSs [pPSs]. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cross-sectional positron emission tomography (PET) studies find that cognitively normal carriers of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) epsilon4 allele, a common Alzheimer's susceptibility gene, have abnormally low measurements of the cerebral metabolic rate for glucose (CMRgl) in the same regions as patients with Alzheimer's dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants in the hypertension group with at least 1 ε4 allele showed significantly greater amyloid burden than those with only 1 risk factor or no risk factors. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The TIV normalization of cross-sectional brain volumes significantly reduced interindividual variation; the coefficient of variation (CV) was reduced from 10.0% to 6.0% in controls (P <.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There was complete agreement between visual reads of ¹⁸F-flutemetamol PET scans (3 blinded readers with majority rule) and histology. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The gFC was reduced in MC compared with NC participants. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 171 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The APOE ε4 allele segregated dose-dependently and selectively with CA1-SRLM thinning and worse episodic memory performance in a pool of older subjects across a cognitive spectrum. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among mild to moderate AD patients, enrolled in an actual clinical trial, these results suggest evidence based guidelines for using the MacCAT-CR understanding subscale to help guide judgments about whether a patient has the capacity to consent. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These effects were most pronounced in caregivers of subjects with Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In order to observe changes owing to aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the volumes of subdivisions of the hippocampus and the number of neurons of the hippocampal formation, 18 normal brains from subjects who died of nonneurological causes and had no history of long-term illness or dementia (ten of these brains comprised the aged control group) and 13 AD brains were analyzed. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multiple reasons contribute to the institutionalization for people with dementia, with several factors that may influence why there were country differences. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The PRISM-PC questionnaire captures primary care patients' acceptance, perceived harms, and perceived benefits of dementia screening. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 315 Evidence: low
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 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 →