MCI prevalence was 6.7% for ages 60-64, 8.4% for 65-69, 10.1% for 70-74, 14.8% for 75-79, and 25.2% for 80-84. 1 key finding →
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.
We tested the hypothesis that plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) identifies asymptomatic carriers of familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD)-causing mutations at risk of disease progression. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 277 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In moderate stages of amnestic mild cognitive impairment, common cognitive tests provide better predictive accuracy than measures of whole brain, ventricular, entorhinal cortex, or hippocampal volumes for assessing progression to Alzheimer disease. 1 key finding →
Participants: 129 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Patients with MCI converted to AD at an annual rate of 17.2%. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 85 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
69/100
CKD was associated with increased p-tau217 concentrations when measuring p-tau217 by ALZpath and C 2 N methodologies, but the effect was mitigated by the use of %p-tau217. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
69/100
Progression from amnestic mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease in this cohort was best determined by combining four common, easily administered, cognitive measures. 1 key finding →
Participants: 539 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this community-based cohort without dementia, florbetapir uptake is associated with older age and APOE genotype. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 329 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Association of HT use and risk of AD may depend on timing of use. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
68/100
Our prospective findings provide evidence for what may be an early contributory role of systemic inflammation in neurodegeneration and cognitive aging. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,633 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative has successfully recruited cohorts of cognitively normal subjects, subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and subjects with Alzheimer disease with anticipated baseline characteristics. 1 key finding →
Participants: 819 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for age at baseline, gender, apolipoprotein genotype, and NYU paragraph delayed recall score, showed that higher BDI scores were associated with progression to AD (p = 0.03). 4 key findings →
Participants: 208 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During the period of longitudinal observation, which averaged 32.6 months, 27 of the 80 MCI patients became demented. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Biomarkers have become an essential component of Alzheimer disease (AD) research and because of the pervasiveness of AD pathology in the elderly, the same biomarkers are used in cognitive aging research. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) Consortium has revised criteria for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB incorporating new information about the core clinical features and suggesting improved methods to assess them. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The prodromal phase of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) includes (1) mild cognitive impairment (MCI), (2) delirium-onset, and (3) psychiatric-onset presentations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This article provides a classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and its 3 main variants to improve the uniformity of case reporting and the reliability of research results. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 1,969 subjects without dementia, 329 subjects had MCI, with a prevalence of 16.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-17.5) for any MCI, 11.1% (95% CI 9.8-12.3) for amnestic MCI, and 4.9% (95% CI 4.0-5.8) for nonamnestic MCI. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,969 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
63/100
Increased amygdalar diffusivity in the absence of tissue loss in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) may be related to microvacuolation, a common pathology associated with Lewy body disease in the amygdala. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
Levels of autolysosomal proteins in neurally derived blood exosomes distinguish patients with AD from case controls and appear to reflect the pathology of AD up to 10 years before clinical onset. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 153 of 534 participants (28.7%) with prevalent or incident MCI progressed to dementia (71.3 per 1,000 person-years). 2 key findings →
Participants: 534 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
New consensus diagnostic criteria for TES were developed with a primary goal of facilitating future CTE research. 2 key findings →
Participants: 298 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were minimal effects of lifestyle enrichment on AD biomarker trajectories (specifically rates). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 393 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We have developed MCI risk scores using variables easily assessable in the clinical setting and that may be useful in routine patient care. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype is cost-effective vs SoC alone for patients with MCI or mild dementia due to AD. 2 key findings →
Design: modelling Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Comparison of probands with their unaffected spouses yielded odds ratios for AD of 9.9 (95% CI, 6.5 to 15.1) for head injury with loss of consciousness and 3.1 (2.3 to 4.0) for head injury without loss of consciousness. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,233 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →