As a result, physicians struggle to interpret these models, and feel it is hard to trust them. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,048 Evidence: low
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.
Multidomain lifestyle interventions represents a promising strategy to counteract cognitive decline in older age. 2 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There are fewer than normal glucose transporters at the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with multi-domain amnestic mild cognitive impairment (md-aMCI) have an elevated risk of dementia and need interventions that may retain or remediate cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite most monoclonal antibodies against Aβ in Alzheimer's failed to demonstrate efficacy, the newest antibodies showed statistically significant clinical effects. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We carried out systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether peripheral levels of pro-inflammatory markers including Interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Tumor Necrosis Factor-α (TNF- α) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) are significantly higher in elderly with depression and Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence suggests that lifelong cumulative exposure to pesticides may generate lasting toxic effects on the central nervous system and contribute to the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We evaluated the performance of CSF biomarkers for predicting risk of clinical decline and conversion to dementia in non-demented patients with cognitive symptoms. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 619 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Olink Proteomics panel of inflammation markers ( https://www.olink.com/products/inflammation/ ) will be used to evaluate 92 proteins associated with inflammatory diseases and related biological processes. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Understanding the exact pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the involvement of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) related microglia activation is crucial for the development of clinical trials targeting microglia activation at different stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,001 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Data collected from clinical trials and cohort studies, such as dementia studies, are often high-dimensional, censored, heterogeneous and contain missing information, presenting challenges to traditional statistical analysis. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,037 Evidence: moderate
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 →