27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Neurosyphilis is caused by the bacterium Treponema pallidum subspecies pallidum ( T. pallidum ). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Mild cognitive impairment refers to the transitional state between the cognitive changes of normal aging and the fully developed clinical features of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The care of a patient with neurologic disease at end-of-life requires expertise in addressing advance care planning, hospice, symptom management, and caregiver support. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The burden of neurological disease is increasing globally. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Increasing research links the gut microbiome to neurodegenerative disorders. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Approximately half of older people report sleep disturbances, which are associated with various health conditions, including neurodegenerative disease and dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Human immunodeficiency virus-type 1 (HIV-l) infection is the most common preventable and treatable cause of neurocognitive impairment in individuals under age 50 years. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
As the U.S. population ages, Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) cases are increasing, resulting in long wait times for specialist care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Chronic traumatic brain injury (CTBI) associated with boxing occurs in approximately 20% of professional boxers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the commonest neurodegenerative disease and the most frequent cause of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The foundation of current Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatment involves pharmacological and nonpharmacological management and care planning predicated on patient-centered psychoeducation, shared goal-setting, and decision-making forged by a strong triadic relationship between clinician and the patient-caregiver dyad. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although cerebral small vessel disease has been linked to stroke and dementia, due to limitations of current neuroimaging technology, direct in vivo visualization of changes in the cerebral small vessels (e.g., cerebral arteriolar narrowing, tortuous microvessels, blood-brain barrier damage, capillary microaneurysms) is difficult to achieve. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative cause of dementia and is responsible for significant individual morbidity and mortality, and economic impact on the health care system. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this review, the authors outline a clinical approach to frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), a term coined to describe a pathology associated with atrophy of the frontal and temporal lobes commonly seen with abnormal protein aggregates. 3 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 27,380 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 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 →