There are dozens of drugs in development for AD with billions of dollars invested. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Our results from 5 patients with eAD treated with LD-WBRT (10 Gy in 5 fractions) demonstrate a positive safety profile and provide preliminary, hypothesis-generating data to suggest that this treatment stabilizes or improves cognition. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
47/100
Nearly a dozen monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against beta-amyloid (Aβ) have been developed for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD), and most of these mAbs are undergoing clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
Our study included 74,275 weeks of driving data (2015-2024, average follow-up 6.1 years). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuroplasticity involves molecular and structural changes in central nervous system (CNS) throughout life. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although the two pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), senile plaques composed of amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides and neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) consisting of hyperphosphorylated tau, have been studied extensively in postmortem AD and relevant animal and cellular models, the pathogenesis of AD remains unknown, particularly in the early stages of the disease where therapies presumably would be most effective. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early NPS burden as well as NPS severity progression rate, independently of cognitive status, might be useful clinical metrics and may help predict underlying pathological diagnoses. 3 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The nationwide combined weighted PAF for the eight CMDs was 37% overall, with hypertension (9.6%), ischemic heart disease (6.7%), and chronic heart failure (5.7%) associated with the greatest attributable fractions of dementia cases. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a transitional stage between normal aging and dementia and people with MCI are at high risk of progression to dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disease and typically affects patients older than age 65. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), a progressive neurodegenerative disease with heterogeneous clinical presentations, greatly impacts patients, caregivers, and society. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have introduced a new era in the treatment of early Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified specific miRNA groups, mRNA targets, and signaling pathways distinguishing AD, MCI, resilience, ante mortem neuropsychological test performance, post mortem neuropathological burden, and AD risk. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a transitional stage between normal aging and Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Participants: 476 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study provides new insights into the regional binding distribution of a first-generation and a second-generation Tau tracer in limbic and neocortical regions in adults with DS, as well as regional differences in Tau binding in adult with DS vs. those with AD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
To investigate the association of the area deprivation index (ADI), as assigned at the census block group-level, with progression to dementia in cognitively unimpaired at baseline participants (≥50 years old) of the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Tau pathology is a major age-related event in Down syndrome with Alzheimer’s disease (DS-AD). 4 key findings →
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 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 →