Median follow-up by intention to treat was 2.0 years. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,180 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
As tau aggregation pathology correlates with clinical dementia in Alzheimer's disease (AD), a tau aggregation inhibitor (TAI) could have therapeutic utility. 4 key findings →
Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A robust association between some classes of anticholinergic drugs and future dementia incidence was observed. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 770 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Brain clocks, which quantify discrepancies between brain age and chronological age, hold promise for understanding brain health and disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 5,306 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
70/100
Common genetic variance in apolipoprotein E (APOE), β-glucocerebrosidase (GBA), microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT), and α-synuclein (SNCA) has been linked to cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease (PD), although studies have yielded mixed results. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 281 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, as well as models of care for fracture prevention. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Anticholinergic burden (ACB), the cumulative effect of anticholinergic medications, is associated with adverse outcomes in older people but is less studied in middle-aged populations. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 502,538 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It was not possible to demonstrate significant differences on the co-primary clinical endpoints (ADAS-cog 11 and ADCS-ADL 23 ) at 52 weeks due to symptomatic activity in the control arm. 5 key findings →
Design: phase-3-trial Participants: 598 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With the increase in large multimodal cohorts and high-throughput technologies, the potential for discovering novel biomarkers is no longer limited by data set size. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
An international expert panel convened to evaluate nutrition-based approaches to brain health and dementia prevention. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These data are evidence of a gene x environment interaction for cognitive aging. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A hypothetical construct of "cognitive reserve" is widely used to explain how, in the face of neurodegenerative changes that are similar in nature and extent, individuals vary considerably in the severity of cognitive aging and clinical dementia. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Many trials of drugs aimed at preventing or clearing β-amyloid pathology have failed to demonstrate efficacy in recent years and further trials continue with drugs aimed at the same targets and mechanisms. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a moderate yet significant reduction in Aβ plaque size in male 5×FAD × mAPPA673T compared with 5×FAD mice. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found that an ecological measure of socio-economic deprivation was related to VaD but not to AD PSD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Hexanucleotide repeat expansions in C9orf72 are the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia, yet the predictive information contained within associated inflammatory and proteinopathy markers remains incompletely characterised. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
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 →