Worldwide costs of dementia are enormous and distributed inequitably. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
54/100
Dementia is one of the most common and important aspects of Parkinson's disease and has consequences for patients and caregivers, and has health-related costs. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Neurodegenerative disorders of ageing (NDAs) such as Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, frontotemporal dementia, Huntington disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis represent a major socio-economic challenge in view of their high prevalence yet poor treatment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hypertension is a major risk factor for many common chronic diseases, such as heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular dementia, and chronic kidney disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Electrophysiology Professional Interest Area (EPIA) and Global Brain Consortium endorsed recommendations on candidate electroencephalography (EEG) measures for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our data suggest that structural MRI can be used to identify biologically and clinically meaningful subtypes of AD. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found a 2- to 3-fold geographical variation in dementia odds in Sweden, after twin random effects-likely to capture genetic and shared environmental variance-were removed. 5 key findings →
Participants: 27,680 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
We increased the findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability (FAIR) status of the cohorts through harmonization of data across cohorts, implementation of medical imaging repositories for scan management, implementation of the Personal Health Train infrastructure and provision of meta-data in existing cohort catalogues. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
for interaction <0.05). We identified a worse cognitive function and an increased mortality risk in dementia patients with RA compared with non-RA. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We present a new ARWMC scale applicable to both CT and MRI that has almost equal sensitivity, except for certain regions.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our results suggest that risperidone may affect the CSF profile of AD biomarkers indicating more amyloid pathology. 5 key findings →
Participants: 44 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
More than 25 million people in the world today are affected by dementia, most suffering from Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Moderate intake of unsaturated fats at midlife is protective, whereas a moderate intake of saturated fats may increase the risk of dementia and AD, especially among ApoE epsilon4 carriers. 1 key finding →
Participants: 117 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Caffeine has well-known short-term stimulating effects on central nervous system, but the long-term impacts on cognition have been less clear. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our cost model revealed that brain disorders overall are much more costly than previously estimated constituting a major health economic challenge for Europe. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In the following brief report, we examined gender differences in incidence rates of any dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) alone, and non-Alzheimer's dementia alone in 16,926 women and men in the Swedish Twin Registry aged 65+. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher levels of physical activity are known to benefit aspects of brain health across the lifespan. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline data of 423 PD patients and 196 HCs yielded no between-group differences in demographic characteristics. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
[(11)C]PIB retention in the neocortical and subcortical brain regions was significantly higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls. 3 key findings →
Participants: 97 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Single-cell RNA sequencing data generated with SmartSeq2 (≈8000 genes/cell) in 16 588 single cells isolated during atherosclerosis progression in Ldlr -/- Apob 100/100 mice with human-like plasma lipoproteins and from humans with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid plaques was clustered into multiple subtypes. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
Moreover, there is limited knowledge regarding associations with domain-specific cognitive decline and modifying effects of key individual characteristics. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,008 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
• Low ALPS index was significantly associated with high risk of MCI, and the risk of MCI decreased linearly with a higher ALPS index • High ALPS index was dose-dependently associated with a decreased progression from MCI to AD • High ALPS index may delay the MCI onset approximately 3.8 years among CN participants and delay MCI progression to AD by approximately 3.5 years in MCI group • Aβ in choroid plexus, tau in part of the cortex and executive function were partially mediate ALPS-AD association We aimed to explore the association between ALPS index and both risks of MCI from cognitively normal (CN) and incident AD progressed from MCI, as well as potential mediating factors. 1 key finding →
Participants: 519 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebrospinal fluid analyses and neuroimaging can identify the underlying pathophysiology at the earliest stage of some neurodegenerative disorders, but do not have the scalability needed for population screening. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A projected doubling in the global population of people aged ≥60 y by the year 2050 has major health and economic implications, especially in developing regions. 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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.
1,034 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 →