27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
There were 13,700 beneficiaries with full-year enrollment in MA (6,046) or TM (7,724), 518 with ADRD and 13,252 without ADRD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.14. The effect of ADI score was also significant, β = -0.36, t = -2.30, p < .05; while the effect of RUCC, β = 0.06, t = 0.34, p = .73, and the interaction between ADI and RUCC, β = -0.001, t = 0.27, p = .99, were nonsignificant. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lower objective SES was associated with poorer performance on all cognitive domains: episodic memory (β = 0.115, p = 0.003), executive function (β = 0.210, p 0.05). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher ADI was significantly associated with increased CRP (r=0.469, p = 0.002) and TREM-1 (r=0.316, p = 0.047). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 40 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Loneliness moderated the relationship between national ADI scores and short-term visuospatial memory. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 136 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vascular burden influences NfL levels, particularly in A- individuals at a symptomatic stage. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 421 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The first SVD component accounted for 21.56%, 12.93%, 11.91% of the total co-variability between the pairs (cortical thickness, tau), (relative GM density, tau) and (absolute GM density, tau), respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 222 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early detection of abnormal neurodegeneration amidst normal cognitive aging is crucial. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In both cohorts there were significant associations between CSF MTBR-tau243 and the temporal meta-ROI (BioFINDER-2: t = 17.1, p < 0.001, Knight-ADRC: t=11.0, p <0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The model showed excellent fit. Caregiver burden had a significant direct effect on anxiety (59.1% of the total effect), while indirect effects accounted for 40.9%. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The average age for patient was 78.13 ± 10.25 and for caregivers was 54.64 ± 13.22 years. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 108 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Targeted interventions, as enhanced training and improved support systems, are essential to address these disparities and better support GPs. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 789 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There are meaningful differences in the readability of patient information generated by different large language models. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Misconceptions were common: 38% of participants equated ACP exclusively with decisions to forgo active treatment, and many conflated ACP with current rather than future-oriented care planning. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All patients had a Needs Near the End-of-Life Care Screening (NEST-13) score ≥30, indicating a high level of EOL care need. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 301 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 2,435,099 weighted hospitalizations, palliative care documentation was present in 65,675 (2.70%), increasing from 2.13% in 2016 to 3.43% in 2022. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Carers' knowledge about dementia was moderate overall, with higher scores among those with greater education and previous dementia exposure. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) frequently present to emergency departments (EDs) with multiple coexisting conditions. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 125,461 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Bivariate analyses showed that chain grocery store shoppers reported significantly greater fruit and vegetable intake (2.42 vs. 2.14 times/day for independent grocery store shoppers, p < 0.001) and lower rates of food insecurity compared to independent store shoppers (45.9% vs. 65.3% for independent grocery store shoppers, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MTL 11C-acetate SUVR was significantly elevated in MCI compared to cognitively normal participants (P = 0.03; Cohen d = 1.76). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Significant regional differences in AD dementia prevalence were observed (F = 126.56, p < 0.05). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Nursing homes generally met three quarters of the pre-defined criteria for advance care planning policy. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The caregiver burden was found at a moderate to severe level with the average score of 58.14(12.84). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.049, respectively), followed by musculoskeletal pain in the back and lower limbs. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Epidemiological data show that both PD incidence rate and prevalence rate show a significant age-dependent growth trend [3]. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional 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 27,780 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.
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 →