27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
We review the epidemiologic data that led to the recommendation to use diastolic hypertension and proteinuria as diagnostic criteria, as their combined presence was associated with an increased risk of fetal death and the birth of small-for-gestational-age neonates. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with the control arm (n = 36), the TEAM-V Program (n = 39) was associated with significantly improved general cognition (MoCA, P = 0.02) at 2 years. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 40 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Huntington's disease (HD), and prion diseases have a certain degree of clinical, pathological, and molecular overlapping. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 944 clinical cases, 13.0% were characterized as probable LATE (2.4% pure LATE and 10.6% LATE+AD) and 23.7% were characterized as probable AD without LATE. 5 key findings →
Participants: 944 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Daily informal care time was 0.5 hours higher in moderate compared to mild and 1.3h higher in severe compared to mild cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 5,369 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma biomarkers showed promising diagnostic performances and potential clinical usefulness in diagnosing dementia. 2 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Forty-four physicians, primarily neurologists (n = 31; 70.5 %), were interviewed. 5 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Carers' knowledge about dementia was moderate overall, with higher scores among those with greater education and previous dementia exposure. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared with no testing, the CSF strategy yielded 0.011 additional life-years and 0.019 additional QALYs for an extra cost of THB2,589 (USD71), resulting in an ICER of THB132,961 (USD3,632) per QALY. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The research findings revealed that 26.2% of the sample experienced psychological distress. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CVI of PAINAD-Th was 1.00 for forward translation and 0.93 for back translation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundClonal haematopoiesis (CH), the age-related expansion of mutated blood stem cells, is detectable in around 10% of people in their seventies, rises steeply with age, and is associated with several diseases. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,091 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
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.
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.
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 →