The mean CDR-SB score at baseline was approximately 3.2 in both groups. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 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.
In this meta-analysis, the usage of hearing restorative devices by participants with hearing loss was associated with a 19% decrease in hazards of long-term cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 137,484 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48,522 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We also determined the extent to which sex, educational attainment, and apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE*4) carrier status were associated with decline. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 42,170 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this study, we found that ePVS counts were not associated with cognitive dysfunction in the general population. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 3,575 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We performed a meta-analysis to examine the aggregate levels of serum BDNF in patients with AD and individuals with MCI, in comparison with healthy controls. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,067 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We identified 4 novel genetic loci that implicate inflammatory and glial proliferative pathways in the development of WMH in addition to previously proposed ischemic mechanisms. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
68/100
A total of 5 071 935 participants were included from 27 studies; approximately 49.2% of participants were female, and 14 studies were conducted in Asia, 7 in North America, 3 in Europe, and 3 in Oceania, represented by Australia. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 935 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We tested the trained model using five other studies, three of which used PET as a biomarker of significant amyloid β burden (testing the deep learning model between amyloid β positive vs amyloid β negative). 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 648 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
65/100
Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapies utilizing amyloid-β (Aβ) immunization have shown potential in clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MetS was associated with an increased incidence of MCI and progression to dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 984 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early identification of individuals at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia is important for developing disease-modifying therapies. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,677 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MoCA is more sensitive than the MMSE in screening for cognitive impairment after acute stroke. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
An international working group from the Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration completed a structured process to develop definitions and imaging standards for markers and consequences of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence strongly supports the important role of insulin resistance in cognitive decline and dementia and suggests that insulin sensitizers may protect against cognitive decline in diabetic and pre-diabetic individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 204 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
62/100
Co-pathology is a common feature of neurodegenerative diseases that complicates diagnosis, treatment and clinical management. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 17,187 Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
Ageing and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with declines in muscle function and cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in an impaired capacity to perform daily activities and maintain independent functioning. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
61/100
Three survey rounds included 49 to 54 participants that agreed on VasCog-2 diagnostic criteria for preclinical, mild, and major dementia levels of vascular cognitive impairment (under the overarching term VCID). 5 key findings →
Participants: 49 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with AD and VaD have higher Hct levels than controls; however, a causal relationship between high-Hct level and risk of developing dementia is not supported. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,122 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 7170 prescreened papers, 12 met the inclusion criteria. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighty older adults with MCI (median age 86.50 years) participated, with an average attendance rate of 86.25% in the intervention group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Brain macrophage populations include parenchymal microglia, border-associated macrophages, and recruited monocyte-derived cells; together, they control brain development and homeostasis but are also implicated in aging pathogenesis and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
Of the total of 1795 subjects randomized in Clarity AD, 294 subjects were in the Asian region (Japan:152; Korea:129; Singapore:13). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 294 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 →