Neurotropic herpesviruses may be implicated in the development of dementia 1-5 . 1 key finding →
Design: cohort Evidence: moderate
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.
Risk stratification is critical for the early identification of high-risk individuals and disease prevention. 3 key findings →
Participants: 117,981 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 12,327 patients who underwent randomization (6162 to the asundexian group and 6165 to the placebo group), the incidence of ischemic stroke was lower in the asundexian group than in the placebo group (6.2% vs. 8.4%; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.84; P<0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 12,327 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There are limited data regarding cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma biomarkers among patients with Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy (CAA). 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
56 individuals (mean (sd) age: 68.8 (4.2) years, 26 females, 24/32 intervention/control group) were included at baseline and 41 returned after an average of 28 months for the second assessment. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 56 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Elevated blood levels of phosphorylated tau (p-tau) are diagnostic of Alzheimer disease and are associated with the deposition of amyloid-β in the cerebral neuropil. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Physical activity reduces the risk of cognitive impairment, mainly vascular dementia, in older people living independently. 1 key finding →
Participants: 90 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
By 2060, ADRD cases in China are projected to reach approximately 49.89 million, with the highest prevalence and economic burden concentrated in provinces such as Shandong, Sichuan, Jiangsu, Henan, and Guangdong. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Whereas neurotoxic Aβ is derived from amyloid precursor protein (APP) by β- and γ-secretase cleavage, APP processing along the non-amyloidogenic pathway results in the secretion of the large neurotrophic ectodomain APPsα. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-established treatment for several neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, including movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia, as well as Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome, epilepsy, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
33/100
In recent studies, patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) showed significantly elevated CSF levels of tau protein. 4 key findings →
Participants: 132 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly used for type 2 diabetes. 5 key findings →
Participants: 6,328 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 →