Of 200 participants, 99 were assigned to methylphenidate and 101 to placebo. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: high
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.
Among 3414 included individuals, the mean (SD) age was 68.8 (6.0) years and 2116 (62%) were female. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,184 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aimed to identify lipid species associated with MPH response and explore lipid pathway disruptions in responders versus non-responders. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Baseline cognition was poorer in individuals born and residing in the South, particularly those attending desegregated schools at age 12. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The high failure rate of clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementia (ADRD) is due to a lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of disease, and this deficit may be addressed by applying artificial intelligence (AI) to "big data" to rapidly and effectively expand therapeutic development efforts. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Aggregates of hyperphosphorylated tau (PHF-tau), such as neurofibrillary tangles, are linked to the degree of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Geographical disparities in mortality among Alzheimer`s disease (AD) patients have been reported and complex sociodemographic and environmental determinants of health (SEDH) may be contributing to this variation. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD), the most common form of dementia among older adults, is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by brain amyloid-β (Aβ) plaque deposition and neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
172 patients with symptomatic prion disease were identified. 165 (94.8%) patients experienced ≥1 symptom/sign likely to benefit from palliative care, yet only 113 (65.7%) patients accessed palliative care resources during the illness course (hospice care: 39.7%; palliative care consultation: 14.9% inpatient, 6.9% outpatient; both: 3.4%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 172 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
39/100
Despite substantial investment in biomedical and pharmaceutical research over the past two decades, the global prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) is still rising. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed two promising biomarkers of AD, mLOY and APR, both contribute discriminating AD and CI but differently. 5 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our preliminary results found no significant association between LOAD and the individual SNPs defining the CFH or ARMS2/HTRA1 loci. 4 key findings →
Participants: 152 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Human amyloid imaging is one of the great recent translational medicine stories. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
36/100
The smart device system to monitor tremors and to recognize its phenotypes for better outcomes of deep brain stimulation, applications evaluating fine motor functions, AI integrated electroencephalogram learning to diagnose epilepsy and psychological non-epileptic seizure, predict outcome of seizure surgeries, recognize patterns of autonomic instability to prevent sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), identify the pattern of complex algorithm in neuroimaging classifying cognitive impairment, differentiating and classifying concussion phenotypes, smartwatches monitoring atrial fibrillation to prevent strokes, and prediction of prognosis in dementia are unique examples of experimental utilizations of AI in the field of neurology. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The potential of brain imaging has grown rapidly with new modalities, hybrid combinations of existing modalities, and novel metabolic tracers. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSThe genetic architecture of Alzheimer disease remains incompletely understood. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSINTRODUCTIONC_ST_ABSThe Collaborative Amish Aging and Memory Project (CAAMP) is an ongoing longitudinal study spanning multiple sites, focused on cognitive function and age-related traits in Midwestern Amish (Ohio and Indiana) communities. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 3,978 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 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 →