The overall adherence rate to MI was 84.7%. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
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.
Reducing the risk of dementia can halt the worldwide increase of affected people. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Risk factors for progression from MCI to probable AD differed in men and women. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 294 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This cluster analysis of cortical thickness of the entire brain showed that AD dementia in the earlier stages can be categorized into various anatomical subtypes, with distinct clinical features. 5 key findings →
Participants: 52 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the five personality domains, only extraversion was significantly associated with reduced odds of cognitive decline within the intervention group over 24 weeks (fully adjusted model: OR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.15-0.82). 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 136 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most patients with svMCI do not exhibit substantial amyloid burden, and CVD does not increase β-amyloid burden as measured by amyloid imaging. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 95 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
=0.03), indicating improved executive function. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One of the five patients with AD treated with LDRT experienced a temporary improvement in SNSB-II. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study developed machine learning models to predict Aβ positivity in Alzheimer’s disease by integrating early-phase 18 F-Florbetaben PET and clinical data to improve diagnostic accuracy. 2 key findings →
Participants: 176 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recommendations vary by medication type and symptom severity. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Growing dementia prevalence underscores the need for efficient screening methods, but lengthy digital assessments often cause fatigue among older adults. 1 key finding →
Participants: 297 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The machine learning algorithm for NPTs has suggested potential use as a reference in differentiating cognitive impairment in the clinical setting. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fourteen participants (21.5%) converted to MCI, and 24 (36.9%) were classified as Prog-1.Plasma biomarkers did not show consistent predictive performance across predefined endpoints (all p>0.05), although NfL demonstrated modest discrimination for MCI conversion (area under the curve [AUC] 0.686, p=0.008).Hippocampal volume demonstrated significant discriminative performance for MCI conversion (AUC 0.765, p=0.016) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.933, p<0.001).For Prog-2, hippocampal volume showed high discrimination (AUC 0.952, p<0.001).WMH grade also demonstrated significant discrimination for MCI conversion (AUC 0.835, p<0.001) and Prog-1 (AUC 0.857, p<0.001).Bootstrap analyses (1,000 iterations) tended to show higher AUC estimates for imaging markers compared with plasma biomarkers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results of the present study suggest that increased 18 F-THK5351 uptake might be a useful predictor of poor prognosis among Aβ- aMCI patients, which might be associated with increased neuroinflammation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02656498). 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive training, whether combined with active or sham tDCS, led to significantly increased fractional anisotropy averaged across all brain regions, indicating an overall improvement in white matter integrity. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 →