31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Promising results are reported across nearly all 51 studies, but very few have been implemented in clinical research or practice. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This meta-analysis provides evidence that poor gait performance predicts dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Non-ART polypharmacy is common among PLWH and associated with an increasing risk of hospitalization and mortality [1]; thus, nonpharmacologic management of comorbidities is critical for PLWH who may experience an earlier onset and a greater burden of comorbidities. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurofilament light (NFL) is a putative biomarker of neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The available evidence suggests that ethnicity and race may influence blood biomarker concentrations. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Various digital therapeutics (DTx), which utilize computerized cognitive training (CCT) to improve cognitive functioning, have been tested and released. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This systematic review will summarise existing high-quality primary studies on computerised-cognitive interventions for MCI and dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cardiovascular (CV)- and lifestyle-associated risk factors (RFs) are increasingly recognized as important for Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The availability of high-quality RNA-sequencing and genotyping data of post-mortem brain collections from consortia such as CommonMind Consortium (CMC) and the Accelerating Medicines Partnership for Alzheimer's Disease (AMP-AD) Consortium enable the generation of a large-scale brain cis-eQTL meta-analysis. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In Alzheimer's disease (AD) research, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Amyloid beta (Aβ), Tau and pTau are the most accepted and well validated biomarkers. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The observation that AD and IS had shared disease-associated genes offered mechanistic insights into their common pathogenesis, predominantly involving the immune system. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our data highlight the complex interplay between disease, age and cell-type-specific methylation changes in AD risk genes thus offering new perspectives for the validation and interpretation of large EWAS results. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The limited number of independent cohorts, lack of longitudinal data, and exclusion of individuals with mixed dementia limit the generalizability of these findings. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Over the past two decades, resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) methods have provided new insights into the network organization of the human brain. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Anti-amyloid drugs for early Alzheimer's disease, including lecanemab, are associated with adverse events (AEs), such as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA)-edema/effusion (E), ARIA-hemorrhage, and infusion-related reactions, which can indicate allocated arms in clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's are some of the most common neurological disorders, which affect millions of people worldwide. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Transgenic models of familial Alzheimer's disease (AD) serve as valuable tools for probing the molecular mechanisms associated with amyloid-beta (Aβ)-induced pathology. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A meta-analysis of the data extracted from three randomized control trials revealed that treatment with exenatide yielded significant improvements in scores on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part I (UPDRS-I) (-0.438, 95% CI, -0.828 to -0.048, p = 0.028), UPDRS Part IV (UPDRS-IV) (-0.421, 95% CI, -0.811 to -0.032, p = 0.034) and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) (-0.595, 95% CI, -1.038 to -0.151, p = 0.009). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To study the impact of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, and memantine on cognitive, functional, behavioral, global changes and adverse effects in patients with mild, moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD), we screened the literature published before September 2017 in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science Electronic databases according to the inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pharmacological interventions have beneficial effects on cognition, function, and global changes, but not on neuropsychiatric symptoms, through current network meta-analysis. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified a new genetic risk association of AD with rare coding CLU variations that is independent of the 5' common association signal identified in the GWA studies. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,930 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Assignment to active treatment was not beneficial for any of the indications examined and may have been slightly disadvantageous for patients with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 39,875 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent results of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) are included for reported outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Sleep management might serve as a promising target for dementia prevention. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The overall unadjusted pooled odds ratio for the progression of MCI to dementia in people with diabetes/MetS was 1.67 (95% CI 1.27-2.19); the pooled odds ratio for progression in diabetes + MCI was 1.53 (95% CI 1.20-1.97) and in people with MetS + MCI was 2.95 (95% CI 1.23-7.05). 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 15 Evidence: high
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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events