27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among 10 095 participants (67.3% men; aged 35-55 years in 1985-1988), a total of 1710 cases of diabetes and 639 cases of dementia were recorded over a median follow-up of 31.7 years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 95 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Ann Neurol 2018;84:737-748. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 443 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study suggests that plasma GFAP is a sensitive biomarker for detecting and tracking reactive astrogliosis and Aβ pathology even among individuals in the early stages of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Adherence to the Life Simple 7 ideal cardiovascular health recommendations in midlife was associated with a lower risk of dementia later in life. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,899 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep dysregulation is a feature of dementia but it remains unclear whether sleep duration prior to old age is associated with dementia incidence. 4 key findings →
Participants: 7,959 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Multimorbidity (hazard ratio [HR] 4·12 [95% CI 3·41-4·98]), frailty (HR 2·38 [95% CI 1·93-2·93]), and disability (HR 1·73 [95% CI 1·34-2·22]) were associated with increased risk of mortality; these associations were not modified by socioeconomic status. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest that decreasing disparities between sexes in education, due to secular increases in educational opportunities, could attenuate sex differences in dementia risk and cognitive decline in the future. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 924 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease comorbid pathologic characteristics are common and are associated with more rapid cognitive decline in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB); therefore, it is anticipated that plasma p-tau concentrations may have utility in assessing cognitive impairment in individuals with this disorder. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 371 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The ε4 allele of apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene and increasing age are two of the most important known risk factors for developing Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,593 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuro-inflammation was not reduced between the neflamapimod and placebo groups, and no change was observed in [18F]-DPA-714 PET. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proposed novel, pragmatic method to determine CSF biomarker cutoffs for AD does not require assessment of other biomarkers or assumptions concerning the clinical diagnosis of patients. 1 key finding →
Participants: 497 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As the number of elderly persons in our country increases, more attention is being given to geriatric healthcare needs and successful ageing is becoming an important topic in medical literature. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Comparing clinical stages, CSF PDGFRβ levels were increased at the MCI stage (Cohen's d = 0.55 [CI 95% 0.066, 1.0], P = 0.025) compared with NC. 3 key findings →
Participants: 23 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Differential diagnosis between dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) is not straightforward, especially in the early stages of disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 57 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Current AT(N) stratification for Alzheimer's disease (AD) accounts for complex combinations of amyloid (A), tau proteinopathy (T) and neurodegeneration (N) signatures. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MEG 16-38Hz spectral power, particularly over parieto-occipital magnetometers, was significantly reduced in the AD progression group. 5 key findings →
Participants: 117 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) is an established risk factor for cognitive impairment. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 507 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The SorLA protein, encoded by the Sortilin-related receptor 1 ( SORL1 ) gene, is a major player in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathophysiology. 4 key findings →
Participants: 30 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
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
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.
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.
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 →