The patterns of FDG decline are distinct in these 2 genetically determined forms of AD. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 76 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Cross-sectional correlational study of criterion-related validity. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The burden perceived by caregivers of patients with dementia is a fundamental prognostic aspect in the history of the disease. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Neuropsychiatric symptoms are prevalent in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD) and commonly measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 5353 MA beneficiary observations (1239 [23.1%] aged 65-74 years; 3127 [58.4%] aged ≥75 years; 1785 male [33.3%]), 1629 (30.4%) reported a diagnosis of ADRD, and 3724 (69.6%) did not report an ADRD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Oral health is strongly associated with overall health. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,488 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants identified as non-Hispanic White (50%), non-Hispanic Black (30%), or Hispanic (13%). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
The mean (SD) age of participants was 70.57 (8.00) years, with 179 (42.9 %) females. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 123 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
EXT showed high cross-sectional reliability and longitudinal stability. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We used cross-sectional data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) from 1999 to 2018 linked to National Death Index records. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The three cognitive assessment tools were valid for detecting subjects with MCI or dementia according to ROC analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,090 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
Alzheimer's disease is associated with pre-symptomatic changes in brain morphometry and accumulation of abnormal tau and amyloid-beta pathology. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Current Care and Support: Four themes emerged: Communication with empathy; Written information valuable but could be overwhelming; Referrals provided but not necessarily followed; A focus on prescribed anti-dementia medications. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant alterations were observed in 7 lipid classes and 65 specific lipid species in DLB compared to AD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
This cross-sectional study examines data for participants in the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium–Down Syndrome study to gauge the concordance of clinical and biological Alzheimer disease staging. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A higher DMV score was significantly associated with increased likelihoods of MCI (OR=1.19; 95%CI=1.06‒1.34) and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) (1.21; 1.06‒1.37), and lower scores in MMSE (-0.01; -0.02‒0.00; p = 0.041), global cognition (-0.05; -0.08‒-0.03), memory (-0.06; -0.10‒-0.02), verbal fluency (-0.05; -0.08‒-0.02), attention (-0.04; -0.07‒-0.01), and executive function (-0.06; -0.10‒-0.03). 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 903 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Gait abnormalities are associated with cognitive decline, and reduced gait speed and gait asymmetry are markers of cognitive decline and increased fall risk in patients with established DLB. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 1013 participants, 847 screened positive on MoCA (70.4% mild, 13.2% moderate) for cognitive impairment and were assessed further for other domains of ICMR-MUDRA toolbox. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,013 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundA novel neuroimaging signature of regional cortical thickness on brain MRI recently showed high potential for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) risk stratification in the community. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,249 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) was associated with higher depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A wMD was related to slowed EM declines across sociodemographic populations in a national U.S. sample. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 833 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's blood-based biomarker (BBM) tests using single biomarkers or ratios are well characterized, but head-to-head comparisons of multi-analyte algorithmic tests on shared cohorts are lacking. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diagnostic pathways for patients presenting with cognitive complaints may vary across geographies. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 6,744 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that OCT can detect functional and morphologic changes in the retina of carriers of familial Alzheimer disease who are cognitively unimpaired several years before clinical onset, suggesting that OCT findings and retinal vascular parameters may be biomarkers prior to the onset of cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This is the first study to consider resident, unit, staff, and home variables that are associated with food intake. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional 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 27,780 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 →