Is it possible to prevent atrophy of key brain regions related to cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease (AD)? 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Although preliminary, our findings have implications for clinical services, and prospective cohort studies are warranted. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 62 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean plasma total homocysteine was 30% lower in those treated with B vitamins relative to placebo. 3 key findings →
Participants: 133 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's dementia affects more than 40 million people worldwide with substantial increases in prevalence anticipated. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 24,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
AS01-adjuvanted shingles (herpes zoster) vaccination is associated with a lower risk of dementia, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 436,788 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although altered lipid metabolism has been extensively implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease (AD) through cell biological, epidemiological, and genetic studies, the molecular mechanisms linking cholesterol and AD pathology are still not well understood and contradictory results have been reported. 3 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 10,578 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Diffusion imaging is a promising marker of microstructural damage in neurodegenerative disorders, but interpretation of its relationship with underlying neuropathology can be complex. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Both behaviour and psychological functioning and the caring environment can help in predicting which patients with dementia currently living at home will enter an institution 1 year later. 2 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
57/100
Reduction in hippocampal and amygdala volume measured via structural magnetic resonance imaging is an early marker of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prospective studies reporting associations between cognitive performance and subsequent incident dementia have been subject to attrition bias. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,051 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches pose a great opportunity for individualized, pre-symptomatic disease diagnosis which plays a key role in the context of personalized, predictive, and finally preventive medicine (PPPM). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Functional and structural connectivity measures, as assessed by means of functional and diffusion MRI, are emerging as potential intermediate biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD) and other disorders. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is a need for an accessible biomarker that can complement current cerebrospinal fluid and imaging biomarkers in an accurate and early diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The AddNeuroMed and ADNI cohorts were combined giving a total of 329 healthy controls, 421 mild cognitive impairment patients, and 286 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. 4 key findings →
Participants: 329 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Lower cognitive levels in lonely and socially isolated patients suggest that these factors may contribute to dementia progression. 2 key findings →
Participants: 382 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neighborhood deprivation was associated with poorer cognition (r = 0.36, p < 0.001), greater prevalence of modifiable risk factors (r = 0.36, p < 0.001), and greater SVD burden (β = 0.18, p = 0.008). 4 key findings →
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 →