Sporadic, late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) constitutes the most frequent cause of dementia in the elderly population. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In sub-populations such as diabetes mellitus type 2, proliferative diabetic retinopathy is an independent predictor of ischemic stroke. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
44/100
The study cohort for the analysis of inpatient palliative care comprised 43,896 patients, while the cohort for the analysis of outpatient palliative care included a total of 37,430 patients. 5 key findings →
Participants: 37,430 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is growing evidence that promising biomarkers of inflammation in Alzheimer´s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases correlate strongest to levels of tau or neurofilament, indicating an inflammatory response to neuronal damage or death. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
43/100
Damaging nonsynonymous ABCA1 variants had differential AD risk effects between APOE genotype groups and exhibited interaction effects with APOE ε2 and ε4. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Microglia sense intact or lesioned cells of the central nervous system (CNS) and respond accordingly. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Elimination of extracellular aggregates and apoptotic neural membranes without inflammation is crucial for brain tissue homeostasis. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The genetic architecture of sporadic Early-Onset Alzheimer Disease (sEOAD, onset ≤65 years) remains largely unknown. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Only FCSRT-IR LTR rates sufficiently differentiated SCD from HC (AUC of 0.701; 95% CI 0.537-0.865). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results indicated good usability for the MoCA Duo. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementias are expensive diseases: the net annual cost in European healthcare is about € 28.000 per case with a strong stage dependency, of which medical care accounts for about 19%. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The deep-learning network was capable of learning the task of delineating pathologic and normal findings within minutes on a standard PC and performing the classification task with 100% accuracy in less than 1 millisecond per case. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Isolated REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is the strongest prodromal marker of Parkinsons disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies, yet diagnosis requires video-polysomnography with assisted montage and expert scoring and does not scale to screening or trial enrichment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 378 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a leading cause of stroke and dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
16/100
Body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related cardiometabolic features associate with Alzheimers disease (AD) risk, yet shared mechanisms remain poorly understood. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundThe brain age gap (BAG), the difference between neuroimaging-predicted and chronological age, captures inter-individual variation in brain aging. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate
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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →