Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. 5 key findings →
Participants: 584 Evidence: high
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.
At 6 months, compared with usual care, participants receiving the intervention had better QOL (QOL-AD score, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.63 to 0.82] vs -0.88 [95% CI, -1.62 to -0.13]; treatment effect estimate, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.07-1.86; P = .03). 4 key findings →
Participants: 612 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Voxel-wise contrasts against controls (at P < 0.05 family-wise error corrected) showed that (18)F-AV1451 and (18)F-FDG patterns in patients with posterior cortical atrophy ('visual variant of Alzheimer's disease', n = 7) specifically targeted the clinically affected posterior brain regions, while (11)C-PiB bound diffusely throughout the neocortex. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Inclusion criteria included clinical diagnosis of PPA; availability of complete speech, language, and cognitive testing; magnetic resonance imaging performed within 6 months of the cognitive evaluation; and PET carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound-B or florbetapir F 18 brain scan results. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 109 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The objective is to identify risk factors associated with PASC/long-COVID diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Participants: 8,325 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. 5 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate
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
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
Comparisons of ADNC in typical amnestic versus atypical aphasic dementia and of TDP in type A versus type C revealed fundamental biological and clinical differences, suggesting that members of each pair may constitute distinct clinicopathologic entities despite identical downstream proteinopathies. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 68 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings have implications for clinical practice and suggest that presence of a caregiver may be an important modifying variable on patient outcomes to examine in future research. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 210 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There was strong agreement regarding the definition of the core clinico-radiological syndrome, meaning that the current consensus statement should be regarded as a refinement, development, and extension of previous single-center PCA criteria rather than any wholesale alteration or redescription of the syndrome. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-two percent of residents had DNR directives, whereas less than 2% had DNH directives. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,962,742 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
These findings suggest that patterns of cortical Aβ and tau do not differ in people with PD-CN, people with PD-MCI, and healthy older adults. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These cross-sectional data provide evidence that tHcy is a risk factor for white matter damage. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 259 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
Compared with white patients, black patients were less likely to have heart failure with preserved systolic function. 3 key findings →
Participants: 11,994 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During the study period, 144 patients were enrolled before major abdominal (40%), thoracic (53%), or vascular (7%) operations. 3 key findings →
Participants: 144 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive decline in chronic diabetic patients is a less investigated topic. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Females with sporadic bvFTD showed worse compulsive behavior (p = 0.026) and language impairments (p = 0.024) compared to females with genetic bvFTD (n = 152). 5 key findings →
Participants: 152 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lesions of the cerebral white matter (WM) result in focal neurobehavioral syndromes, neuropsychiatric phenomena, and dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
48/100
Despite its key role in Alzheimer pathogenesis, the physiological function(s) of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) and its proteolytic fragments are still poorly understood. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
46/100
Among 738 MA and 1488 FFS participants, weighted mean age was 76 years (SD 7.0), 59% were female, and 9% had probable dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
45/100
The sample consisted of 84 participants from the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma, including 53 females and 31 males [M age = 64.89 (SD = 9.73), M education = 12.58 (SD = 2.35)]. 2 key findings →
Participants: 84 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Flaviviruses account for most arthropod-borne cases of human encephalitis in the world. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Those who reached the DBT in both years had higher morbidity and utilization. 4 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
37/100
Key reflections from advisor meetings guided cultural adaptation: lived experiences on dementia caregiving; patient, caregiver, and clinician interactions in the health care system; and limited knowledge and misconceptions of palliative care. 4 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 →