27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In this meta-analysis of phase III trials in AD, we found that monoclonal antibodies against Aβ induced clinical improvements of small effect sizes, biomarker improvements of large effect sizes, and increases in risk for the hallmark adverse event, ARIA, by a large effect size, when all drugs were pooled together. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,585 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite immunotherapies significantly increasing the risks of adverse events and ARIA, the data suggest that mAbs can effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with mild and moderate AD. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 21,087 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this meta-analysis, consistent results suggest that gantenerumab is not safe and efficient for early AD, showing no improvement in clinical scores for AD and being associated with the occurrence of ARIA-E and ARIA-H. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,848 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As visual impairment, cataract, and diabetic retinopathy are associated with an increased likelihood of developing dementia, early diagnosis may help identify those at risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 37,705 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 18 high-quality studies comprising 24 independent datasets and 4,736 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 4,736 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified four plasma protein level PGSs that were significantly associated (FDR-adjusted p < 0.05) with LOAD in a meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts: CX3CL1, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), TIE2, and matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 20 studies were included in the systematic review, and 17 provided data for the meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Visually impaired individuals were more likely to develop incident dementia, with a progressively greater risk among those with worse visual acuity. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 117,187 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a common medical condition in the ageing population, and cognitive intervention is a non-pharmacologic strategy to improve cognitive functions. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,489 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current study investigated several factors that might increase the risk of mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 223,875 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Presence and severity of WMH are associated with substantially increased risk of dementia, functional impairment, stroke recurrence, and mortality after ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 104 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the first NMA comparing different interventions for AD and MCI, our study suggests that PE and CCT might have a significant improvement in cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms respectively. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,747 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mass spectrometry-based proteomics empowers deep profiling of proteome and protein posttranslational modifications (PTMs) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 12,017 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data extraction and synthesis This analysis involved random-effects meta-analyses on group-level study results of clinical data and systematic review of the neuroimaging literature. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 591 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Convergent evidence across the literature supports the use of resting-state connectivity as a biomarker of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,363 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and aggregated tau are two core mechanisms that contribute to the clinical deterioration of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 396 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
GLP-1 RA therapy did not alter amyloid-β and tau biomarkers nor show improvements in cognition but showed potential metabolic and neuroprotective benefits. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,444 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Memantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,433 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results highlight the need for adequate isolation and protective measures. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Hearing loss is one of the top contributors to years lived with disability and is a risk factor for dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 723,266 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Greater adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with a significant improvement in health status, as seen by a significant reduction in overall mortality (9%), mortality from cardiovascular diseases (9%), incidence of or mortality from cancer (6%), and incidence of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease (13%). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 574,299 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The likelihood of amyloid positivity was associated with age and APOE ε4 status. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 377 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer Disease Genetics Consortium (ADGC) performed a genome-wide association study of late-onset Alzheimer disease using a three-stage design consisting of a discovery stage (stage 1) and two replication stages (stages 2 and 3). 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Atypical antipsychotic drugs may be associated with a small increased risk for death compared with placebo. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,353 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Evidence suggests that delirium is associated with long-term poor outcome but delirium often occurs in individuals with more severe underlying disease. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 714 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →