41/100
Our data supported the presumption of increased oxidative stress in DS. 5 key findings →
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.
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 2 197 732 beneficiaries enrolled in D-SNPs in 2021, 881 736 (40.1%) were living in counties with aligned enrollment available and 251 305 (11.4%) enrolled. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloid-targeted monoclonal antibody therapies have introduced a new era in the treatment of early Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
is a heuristic that seeks to develop methodologies capable of identifying subtle behavior(s) that may flag emerging AD and other dementia related syndromes. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Average age of participants was 66 (21-88) years. 25 were biologically female and 15 were amyloid positive. 5 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Addressing disparities related to Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD) is a priority for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Aggregation of the microtubule-binding protein tau is the histopathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases, which are collectively known as tauopathies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Stroke is highly prevalent in long-term care. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
40/100
Top-tertile counties averaged 1986 dementia cases per 100,000 residents; 43.8% were in the South. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 359,474 cognitively impaired residents, 49% had a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We used multilevel logistic regression with a random site intercept to test whether the probability of change in management associated with social determinants, race/ADI interactions with amyloid‐positivity, comorbidities, and clinical setting, adjusting for demographics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Average age of participants was 66 (21-88) years. 25 were biologically female and 15 were amyloid positive. 5 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Nearly 7 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia (ADRD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is increasing evidence for blood-brain barrier (BBB) compromise in Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In 2016, there were 1,005,781 Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service long-term residents. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that moving to an AL influences Medicare enrollment decisions; and, variation in switching exists between the type of AL (general vs memory care) and whether or not an individual has dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63,395 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings suggest that moving to an AL influences Medicare enrollment decisions; and, variation in switching exists between the type of AL (general vs memory care) and whether or not an individual has dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 63,395 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Residence in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods may be associated with lower amyloid pathology in cognitively impaired individuals. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed measurement differences in the HCAP across H/L and NHW older adults for the memory, language, executive functioning, and orientation, but not visuospatial, domains. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We aim to compare the biological staging of Alzheimer Disease using two different tau PET tracers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
38/100
Our results show that MA enrollees in PR have six percentage points higher ADRD rates than their US counterparts. 2 key findings →
Participants: 123,609 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We used multilevel logistic regression with a random site intercept to test whether the probability of change in management associated with social determinants, race/ADI interactions with amyloid‐positivity, comorbidities, and clinical setting, adjusting for demographics. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundAccurate classification of cognitive impairment in population studies is challenging. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
fewer functional limitations in the MA population, perhaps explaining why those patients had fewer health care visits. 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 27,780 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 →