65/100
PRT may have a small beneficial effect on cognitive function in SVCI. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 91 Evidence: early
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.
Recent GWAS studies focused on uncovering novel genetic loci related to AD have revealed associations with variants near CLU, CR1, PICALM and BIN1. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
60/100
MCI as an entity is evolving and somewhat controversial. 1 key finding →
Participants: 93 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are neuroimaging markers widely interpreted as caused by cerebral small vessel disease, yet emerging evidence suggests that a subset may have a neurodegenerative etiology. 1 key finding →
Participants: 32,526 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Semantic dementia is distinguishable from other presentations of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer disease, not only by fluent speech and impaired comprehension without loss of episodic memory, syntax, and phonology but also by empty, garrulous speech with thematic perseverations, semantic paraphasias, and poor category fluency. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
Since 1989, four Canadian Consensus Conferences on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) have provided evidence-based dementia guidelines for Canadian clinicians and researchers. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive impairment is a frequent feature of COPD. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
52/100
This longitudinal study of 196 caregiver/care receiver dyads was undertaken to determine the variables predictive of caregiver decision to institutionalize a dependent with dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Sleep spindles (SPs) and slow oscillations (SOs) are linked to cognition and neurodegeneration; however, their relationship with CSF orexin concentrations in symptomatic AD has not been characterized. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebellar volumetric changes are intricately linked to aging, with distinct patterns across its transverse zones, the functional subdivisions characterized by unique cytoarchitectural and connectivity profiles. 5 key findings →
Participants: 45,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Caregivers most frequently cite deteriorating patient conditions as the main causes of ending home care. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Lecanemab and donanemab are monoclonal antibody therapies that remove amyloid-beta from the brain. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two logic models were developed to identify the determinants of risk for dementia and how these could be targeted by the program. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of brain amyloid beta is now clinically available in several countries including the United States and the United Kingdom, but not Canada. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The first SVD component accounted for 21.56%, 12.93%, 11.91% of the total co-variability between the pairs (cortical thickness, tau), (relative GM density, tau) and (absolute GM density, tau), respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 222 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology include senile plaques accumulation and neurofibrillary tangles, which is thought to underlie synaptic failure. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Respite for individuals caring for family living with dementia is a common way to take personal time away from caregiving. 2 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 27,380 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 →