There were no between-group differences in traditional performance measures of motor, cognitive, or IADL function. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
According to the II level neuropsychological evaluation, 4.8 % of MSA patients met criteria for dementia and 53,2 % for MCI. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-nine individuals were enrolled, 3 were women (10.3 %), age 76.3 ± 6 years (mean ± SD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Compared to other neurodegenerative diseases, Parkinson's disease (PD) is distinctive in terms of marked symptomatic variability and prognosis, as well as for the wide variety of symptomatic treatment options. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
38/100
In the PD group, 13 had normal cognition, 4 had subjective and 14 mild cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Tauopathies are a class of neurodegenerative disorders characterized by neuronal and/or glial inclusions composed of the microtubule-binding protein, tau. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Parkinson's disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) share clinical and pathological similarities. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Navigate PD was an educational program established to supplement existing guidelines and provide recommendations on the management of Parkinson's disease (PD) refractory to oral/transdermal therapies. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Non-motor manifestations of Parkinson disease (PD) are common and some may actually antedate motor dysfunction. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The discovery in 1997 that mutations in the SNCA gene cause Parkinson's disease (PD) greatly advanced our understanding of this illness. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a growing evidence to suggest that apart from motor features, patients with Essential Tremor (ET) may have significant non-motor features. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The discovery of genes implicated in familial forms of Parkinson's disease (PD) has provided new insights into the molecular events leading to neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
87 DLB patients (77.5 ± 7.2yo; 34.5 % females) were included. 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 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.
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 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