The field of aging and dementia is focusing on the characterization of the earliest stages of cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
61/100
This study examined the temporal trends in the incidence rates of HIV dementia, cryptococcal meningitis, toxoplasmosis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, and CNS lymphoma from January 1990 to December 1998 in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
An international group of clinical and basic scientists participated in the Frontotemporal Dementia and Pick's Disease Criteria Conference at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md, on July 7, 2000, to reassess clinical and neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Parkinson disease is a common neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of dopaminergic neurons and the presence of intracytoplasmic-ubiquitinated inclusions (Lewy bodies). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study provides a potential standardized definition for frailty in community-dwelling older adults and offers concurrent and predictive validity for the definition.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We propose the following sequence of events in the development of neuropathologic changes of Alzheimer disease in Down syndrome: (1) intracellular accumulation of Abeta in neurons and astrocytes, (2) deposition of extracellular Abeta and formation of diffuse plaques, and (3) development of neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles with activation of microglial cells. 1 key finding →
Participants: 14 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A collection of 125 PHAL experiments in the rat has been analyzed to characterize the organization of projections from each amygdalar cell group (except the nucleus of the lateral olfactory tract) to the bed nuclei of the stria terminalis, which surround the crossing of the anterior commissure. 4 key findings →
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 27,780 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.
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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →