This is the first demonstration of gender differences in brain ferritin iron levels. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
It was hypothesized that race or ethnicity, social support, and functional status are independently associated with treatment intensity and controlling for regional characteristics, and that individual characteristics account for a substantial proportion of expenditure variation. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
47/100
To record sleep, actigraph devices are worn on the wrist and record movements that can be used to estimate sleep parameters with specialized algorithms in computer software programs. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuroimaging features of early-onset AD in comparison to late-onset AD include greater frequency of hippocampal sparing and posterior neocortical atrophy, increased tau burden, and greater connectomic changes affecting frontoparietal networks rather than the default mode network. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
More than a dozen epidemiological studies have reported that reduced levels or intake of omega-3 fatty acids or fish consumption is associated with increased risk for age-related cognitive decline or dementia such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
Subjects were poor, with low acculturation levels despite long years of U.S. residence. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Teleneuropsychology is proving to be an excellent resource for clarifying cognitive and psychiatric diagnoses, and integrating individual strengths, weaknesses, and preferences into treatment and care plans used by other health care providers, patients, and caregivers. 5 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) genetics implies a causal role for innate immune genes, TREM2 and CD33, products that oppose each other in the downstream Syk tyrosine kinase pathway, activating microglial phagocytosis of amyloid (Aβ). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We previously showed the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ibuprofen suppresses inflammation and amyloid in the APPsw (Tg2576) Tg2576 transgenic mouse. 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
40/100
Neuropsychiatric features characterize frontotemporal dementia (FTD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study explored digital health literacy skills, self-efficacy in utilizing digital health resources, and self-efficacy in managing personal health among caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Synaptic neurodegeneration is thought to be an early event initiated by soluble β-amyloid (Aβ) aggregates that closely correlates with cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study describes the development of the Barriers to Healthcare Access Survey (BHAS) used to evaluate seven barrier factors believed to influence healthcare access for elderly Hispanics with memory or cognitive problems. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The amyloid hypothesis (AH) of Alzheimer's disease (AD) posits that the fundamental cause of AD is the accumulation of the peptide amyloid beta (Aβ) in the brain. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
36/100
Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use-defined as the use of high-risk medications that can increase the risk of adverse events such as physical, cognitive, and functional decline; delirium; hospitalizations; and mortality-remains a significant concern in older adults in the US.Numerous guidelines, including the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria 1 and the STOPP criteria, 2 define PIMs as medications for which the risk of adverse effects outweighs potential benefits or are inappropriate for specific populations or disease states, such dementia or kidney disease.PIM use may be particularly harmful in populations experiencing other health care disparities, as communities experiencing other consequences of health care inequity, including limited access to physicians or pharmacies, greater financial stress, and a higher comorbidity burden, may experience disproportionate effects from the adverse consequences of PIM use. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on physician medical records alone, the 231 high-risk participants (mean age 77, 67% women) received recommended care for 53% of 5,569 evaluated clinical circumstances, ranging from 12% for end-of-life care to 78% for diabetes mellitus. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →