27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Of 6256 participants (3402 women [54.4%]; mean [SD] age at baseline, 61.7 [6.6] years), 510 received an all-cause dementia diagnosis within 17 years of baseline. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 766 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Pericyte damage, reflected by CSF PDGFRβ, may be involved in age-related BBB disruption together with neuroinflammation, but is not related to Alzheimer-related pathologic changes. 2 key findings →
Participants: 408 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia-related blood biomarkers are the future of large-scale dementia risk stratification; however, the extent to which phosphorylated tau (P-tau181), neurofilament light (NfL), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are associated with nonmodifiable risk factors has yet to be confirmed in the community, and the role of menopause has yet to be investigated. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 9,940 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Protein aggregation and dysfunction of the ubiquitin-proteasome system are hallmarks of many neurodegenerative diseases. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Appetite disturbances were present in 9.4% of participants and were associated with greater neuropsychiatric burden and disease severity. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 7,223 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Since the discovery of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) in 1987, extensive research has been conducted analyzing the APP-derived beta-amyloid (Abeta) which is found in massive quantities in senile plaques of Alzheimer disease (AD) patients. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are associated with cortical thinning in distant brain regions. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 551 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a highly disabling progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by a steadily growing number of patients, by the absence of a cure for the disease and by great difficulties in diagnosing in the preclinical phase. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Amyloidogenic processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) results in the generation of beta-amyloid, the main constituent of Alzheimer plaques, and the APP intracellular domain (AICD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) pathology is linked to the neurodegenerative disorders amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and Huntington disease (HD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A comparative analysis of dysphagia pathologies across the three dementia types revealed a relatively mixed picture of various dysphagia findings in all dementia types. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
HIIT alone and in combination with CBD treatment significantly improved cognitive impairment induced by AD. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Existing literature analyzing the choice of received long-term care by frail elderly (65 years) predominantly focuses on physical and psychological conditions of elderly people as factors that influence the decision for a particular type of care. 1 key finding →
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 →