31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Multiple sclerosis remains one of the most common causes of neurological disability in the young adult population (aged 18-40 years). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ageing is a scientifically fascinating and complex biological occurrence characterised by morphological and functional changes due to accumulated molecular and cellular damage impairing tissue and organ function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We used the results to assess whether there is epidemiological convergence across countries. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These results informed an in-depth investigation of observed and expected mortality patterns based on sociodemographic measures. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Parkinson's disease is a recognisable clinical syndrome with a range of causes and clinical presentations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The plasma distribution of gallium (as an analogue of aluminium) was investigated in patients with Alzheimer disease, Down syndrome, or stroke dementia, in subjects on haemodialysis for chronic renal failure, and in healthy controls. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Many neuropsychiatric disorders differ between the sexes in incidence, symptoms, and age at onset. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite enormous investigative efforts, the pathological basis for Alzheimer's disease remains unclear. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Ischaemic heart disease and stroke collectively killed 12·9 million people in 2010, or one in four deaths worldwide, compared with one in five in 1990; 1·3 million deaths were due to diabetes, twice as many as in 1990. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The sequencing of chromosome 21 and the use of models of Down's syndrome in mice have allowed us to relate genes and sets of genes to the neuropathogenesis of this syndrome, and to better understand its phenotype. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mean scores of emotional distress were significantly higher in carers at each time point than in controls (all p<0.0003). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We identified Abeta1-40 and Abeta1-42 in lenses from people with and without Alzheimer's disease at concentrations comparable with brain, and Abeta1-40 in primary aqueous humour at concentrations comparable with cerebrospinal fluid. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The frequency of the allele for apolipoprotein E type 4 (epsilon 4) is increased in late-onset familial and sporadic Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The median rate of atrophy was significantly greater in the Alzheimer's disease group than in the control group (12.3 [range 5.8 to 23.6] vs 0.3 (-1.2 to 1.7) mL per year; p < 0.0001). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events