APOE4 is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 the 286 autopsied brains of 544 participants, brain mercury levels were positively correlated with the number of seafood meals consumed per week (ρ = 0.16; P = .02). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 286 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
65/100
Older adults with cognitive disorders can learn smartphone-based memory strategies and doing so benefits prospective memory functioning and independence. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When compared to usual care, the practice guideline for optimal symptom relief did not relieve discomfort and symptoms in nursing home residents with dementia and pneumonia. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
We present a comprehensive global analysis of genetic variants associated with autosomal-dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 550 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The GBT model achieved the best AUC-ROC scores of 0.809-0.833 across 1- to 5-year prediction windows. 4 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 380,269 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Care for U.S. nursing home residents with LRI and dementia is more aggressive than care for Dutch residents, particularly in residents with severe dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
52/100
Participants included 202 physicians and three nurse specialists who assumed similar medical responsibilities. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 202 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
Voluntary physical activity and exercise training can favorably influence brain plasticity by facilitating neurogenerative, neuroadaptive, and neuroprotective processes. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
Cancer is a long-term illness that involves an imbalance in cellular and immune functions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It is increasingly recognized that obesity is a risk factor for microvascular disease, involving both structural and functional changes in the microvasculature. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
43/100
The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is proteolytically processed by beta- and gamma-secretases to release amyloid beta, the main component in senile plaques found in the brains of patients with Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Interviews with 50 Dutch physicians and 47 American physicians and 3 nurse practitioners generated three themes of ethical considerations: (1) Respecting the autonomy of the person with dementia, (2) Rationality as the basis for decisions and subsequent actions, and (3) Minimizing burden and suffering. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
38/100
Most dementia caregiver programs focus on a single caregiver, overlooking diverse caregiving networks that include family, friends, and relatives who provide care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APP‐mediated signaling plays a key role in regulating sleep, maintaining BBB integrity, and preserving memory in AD. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Rapamycin, an FDA-approved inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway, has demonstrated promising anti-aging and neuroprotective effects. 4 key findings →
Participants: 23 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are increasingly recognized as critical components of the disease progression in Alzheimers disease (AD), yet their relationship with neurodegeneration remain poorly characterized. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,756 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimers disease (AD) is characterized by substantial clinical and biological heterogeneity, with diverse neuroanatomical, cognitive, clinical, functional, and genetic risk profiles that are poorly captured by current diagnostic frameworks. 4 key findings →
Participants: 393 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 →