29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating neurodegenerative disorder with no cure, and available treatments are only able to postpone the progression of the disease. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The objective of this study was to investigate whether increased NLR in older adults is independently associated with the risk of subsequent dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,648 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma Aβ42/40 was a robust biomarker for AD which was not affected by renal function. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 645 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After adjusting for age, sex, and the apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) alleles, compared to the CN group, the plasma t-tau, and NfL were significantly increased in the AD group ( p < 0.01, Bonferroni correction). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 277 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with severe cognitive impairments as well as some metabolic defects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Changes to everyday spoken language ("connected language") are evident in persons with AD dementia, yet little is known about when these changes are first detectable on the continuum of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 264 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CITA GO-ON Study, as a part of the World-Wide FINGERS network, is designed to validate the efficacy of a multidomain lifestyle intervention for dementia prevention and contribute valuable data to inform public health strategies fostering healthy, active aging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,051 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We constructed a panel combining plasma NfL and GFAP with known AD risk factors (Combination panel: age+sex+APOE4+GFAP+NfL). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 63 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 113,511 participants (mean age: 56.8 ± 8.09 years, female: 54.4%), a total number of 1,135 (1.00%) cases of incident dementia were identified during a median follow up period of 11.1 years [interquartile range (IQR): 10.9-11.4 years]. 4 key findings →
Participants: 500,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood-brain-barrier (BBB) dysfunction is a hallmark of aging and aging-related disorders, including cerebral small vessel disease and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We have established a valuable homogeneous single-center cohort which, by identifying groups of variables associated with high risk of MCI or dementia conversion, should help to clarify the early physiopathological mechanisms of AD and should provide avenues for prompt diagnosis and AD prevention. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,169 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study provides a comprehensive review of the last 10 years of research on neuroinflammation and AD, including the number and impact of research findings, research hotspots, and future trends. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,833 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In neurodegeneration research, normalization of regional volumes by intracranial volume (ICV) is important to estimate the extent of disease-driven atrophy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 406 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
CSF sTREM2 levels are positively associated with an increased risk of AD and MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Combined rTMS and cognitive training may improve the cognitive status of AD patients, with TMS-induced cortical plasticity at baseline serving as predictor of therapeutic outcome for this intervention, and potential mechanism of action. 2 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, individuals improved on all C3 measures over 12 months (β = 0.23, 95% CI [0.21-0.25], p < 0.001), but improvement over the first 3 months was greatest (β = 0.68, 95% CI [0.59-0.77], p < 0.001), suggesting stronger PE over initial repeated exposures. 4 key findings →
Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In animal models, the incretin hormone GLP-1 affects Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Delusions, hallucinations, and psychosis cluster were differently distributed among the diagnostic groups (p < 0.05, p < 0.001, and p < 0.05), with LBD patients showing higher scores for hallucinations (vs. MCI, p < 0.001, and AD, p < 0.05) and psychosis cluster (vs. MCI, p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and a growing public health burden in the United States. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,515 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The empirical study showed a U-shaped relationship between sleep duration and increased risk of cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The concept of cognitive reserve (CR) has been proposed as a protective factor that modifies the effect of brain pathology on cognitive performance. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The univariable regression models revealed a higher likelihood of dementia diagnosis in patients with dysphagia (odds ratio = 1.493, 95% confidence interval = 1.000-2.228). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the tea-consuming group, the MoCA scores ( P = 0.000), Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) immediate recall ( P = 0.012) and delayed recall ( P = 0.013) were significantly higher while Trail Making Test-B ( P = 0.005) and Victoria Stroop test interference ( P = 0.000) were lower. 5 key findings →
Participants: 264 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From 1990 to 2019, the Alzheimer's disease burden increased worldwide. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Combining aerobic exercise with cognitive training improves clinical outcomes in older adults with MCI and may influence stress-related neurobiological pathways. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
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 29,780 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →