30,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
< 0.001), with the automated approach more likely to classify a scan as tau negative and lower agreement between methods in more severe cases and AD clinical variants. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We report the neuropathological findings in 32 patients, aged 46-86 years, with dementia lacking distinctive histopathology. 4 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
An important aspect of brain cholinesterase function is related to enzymatic differences. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Exceeding the ambitions of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, to switch the focus of DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction) solutions from top-down to people-centred approaches, requires a better understanding of the complexity and dynamics of citizen and stakeholder engagement in DRR processes. 1 key finding →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In sub-populations such as diabetes mellitus type 2, proliferative diabetic retinopathy is an independent predictor of ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cholinesterase inhibitors tested in clinical trials in Europe, the United States, and Japan include fewer than 10 drugs; however, most of these compounds have advanced to clinical phase III trials. 1 key finding →
Participants: 8,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Aged individuals with Down syndrome (DS) develop senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles consistent with Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The MI group significantly improved in attention-executive functioning (p = 0.003) compared to ACI (Cohen's d: 0.47, 95% CI 0.13-0.79). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DSD occurred in 680 patients (39.8%). Compared with dementia alone, DSD was associated with higher PAS scores (5.3 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001), poorer functional status (FIM 48.6 vs. 57.8, p < 0.001) and more frequent in-hospital falls (29.9% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,709 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug developments and clinical trials (CT) remain vulnerable to problems that undermine research validity. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive impairment is prevalent in older schizophrenia patients but its biological basis is unknown. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In total, 24 recommendations were developed covering the research landscape and priorities within research in AD following a possible approval, potential impact on health care systems and diagnostic pathways, and communication to patients about anti-amyloid antibodies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
anxiety and depression symptoms (HADS), functional autonomy (DAD-6), global cognition (MoCA), and quality of life (WHOQOL). 5 key findings →
Participants: 165 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, is marked by cognitive decline and amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaque deposition in the brain. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) variant is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), while the APOE2 allele is protective. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundWhile transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) shows therapeutic promise for neurological and psychiatric disorders when applied repeatedly, its potential is constrained by multiple laboratory visits. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Letter in response to the article by Wang et al. recently published in Alzheimer's & Dementia (Wang W, Wang Q, Qi X, Gurney M, Perry G, Volkow ND, Davis PB, Kaelber DC, Xu R. Associations of semaglutide with first-time diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: Target trial emulation using nationwide real-world data in the US. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Performance on the shopping task significantly differentiated patients and healthy controls for several variables and, in particular, for total time. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dopamine replacement therapy (DRT) alleviates motor symptoms in Parkinsons disease (PD) but can trigger hallucinations in a subset of patients, yet the neural basis of this selective vulnerability is unknown. 1 key finding →
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 30,180 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 30,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.9%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →