27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioral ALS Screen (ECAS) is the most validated and widely-used ALS-specific cognitive assessment tool, yet paper-and-pencil manual scoring introduces inter-rater variability that can significantly limit reliability and reproducibility in multi-site clinical trials. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The social, structural, and physical conditions in which individuals live, work, and age, collectively termed social determinants of health (SDOH), are associated with risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the only central nervous system tissue that can be directly imaged non-invasively using widely available technology, the retina offers a uniquely accessible window into the brain. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the primary visual cortex (V1), we show that cortical magnification (M) is a deterministic Riemannian coordinate transformation (M \propto 1/\sqrt{\det g}) that equalizes information pressure between the spherical retina and planar cortex.2. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Forty-eight studies, mostly of weak- or moderate-quality, met inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent advances in blood-based biomarkers have transformed the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), enabling the identification of biological risk at preclinical and presymptomatic stages in a noninvasive and accessible manner. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All Big Five domains had prospective associations with multiple dementia risk factors and with cognitive impairment, cognitive function, and self-reported memory. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia is a progressive syndrome characterized by neurodegeneration across distributed brain networks that results in cognitive, behavioral, and functional declines. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is characterized by normative changes in memory and a continued capacity for goal-directed learning and adaptation. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The ability to decode others’ emotions from multisensory cues is central to social functioning. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,511 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Precision psychiatry aims to identify biomarkers and develop prediction models to improve diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment selection. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 2,496 records screened, 26 studies met eligibility, comprising >84,000 older adults across 10 countries: United States, South Korea, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, Taiwan, Germany, and Japan. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
INTRODUCTIONLittle is understood about the extent to which lifestyle factors can advance or delay the risk of developing dementia, and whether that is dependent on non-modifiable factors, e.g. sex and genetic susceptibility.METHODSAmong 224,516 UK Biobank participants aged ≥50 years at baseline, Cox regression examined the relations of apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) genotypes, and lifestyle with incident dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Higher prevalence was observed in the ID group relative to the general population for epilepsy, young-onset ADRD, and their comorbidity. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 847,430 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Model-inferred and reference diagnoses showed exact agreement rates from 18.8% to 56.2% with poor to slight chance-corrected agreement (Cohen’s κ = −.178 to .196). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) detection from spoken language has advanced considerably with the rise of large pre-trained speech and language models, including wav2vec 2.0, BERT, generative LLMs, and emerging audio-LLMs. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recent research has revealed that linguistic features are effective digital markers for the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Face processing abilities are critical for social interaction, yet impairments are common across dementia syndromes and constitute a core diagnostic feature of some neurocognitive disorders. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,810 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present work builds upon progress in foundation artificial intelligence (AI) models for thepurpose of supporting the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 5 key findings →
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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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.
1,034 records (3.7% 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 →