28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) is caused by pathogenic variants in the APP, PSEN1 and PSEN2 genes, but a substantial fraction of reported variants is of unknown clinical significance. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles are the markers of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Currently, several immunotherapies and BACE (Beta Site APP Cleaving Enzyme) inhibitor approaches are being tested in the clinic for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Aducanumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 to treat Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease that imposes economic and societal burden. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Aducanumab (Aduhelm), developed by the biotechnology firm Biogen in Cambridge, MA, was approved using the less common accelerated approval pathway by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) reserved for treatments that fill a significant unmet need. 1 Its approval on June 7, 2021, has been met with an outpouring of opinions from prescribers, insurers, advocacy groups, and hospital systems regarding its risk-benefit profile. 2-4 Originally approved for all forms of Alzheimer disease (AD), the FDA updated aducanumab's labeling on July 8, 2021, for "treatment in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was initiated in clinical trials." 5 With 6 million people nationally in the United States who suffer from AD and an anticipated one-third of those who may now fulfill the criteria under the revised labeling, the implicat
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We believe that the amyloid-PET scans, perceived as showing decreasing amyloid deposits, are an expression of increased cerebral cell death due to aducanumab treatment, so that with time one should instead expect a worsening and not an improvement in the treated patients' condition. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Recent findings There is an association, but Alzheimer pathology explains less than 40% of the attributable risk of dementia when other pathologies such as vascular, Lewy Body and TDP-43 are accounted. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema (ARIA-E) have been reported in patients with early Alzheimer disease treated with aducanumab. 4 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 3,251 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), particularly semaglutide, have demonstrated substantial efficacy for glycemic control and weight management and are increasingly prescribed across diverse populations. 4 key findings →
Design: narrative review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There is a limited choice of psychometric tests for Portuguese speaking people which have been evaluated in well defined groups. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-seven patients with Alzheimer-type dementia (ATD) were treated with bright light therapy in the morning for four consecutive weeks. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Age was similar between groups (p = 0.07). 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher per-capita food availability was positively associated with dementia outcomes in minimally adjusted models, particularly for the 2005 exposure window, although these associations were substantially attenuated after full covariate adjustment. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
It is well recognized that the number of older adults who suffer from dementia has been increasing and will continue to do so over the coming years. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Hospital dementia care discourse on Reddit advanced 4 negative sentiment themes: (1) fear of poor medication management, hydration, and hygiene, (2) loss of patient advocacy, (3) precipitation of advance directive discussions, and (4) delayed discharge and loss of nursing home bed. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Between 1980 and 1987, the number of hospital discharges with total hip replacement (THR) increased by more than 90%, while total hospital discharges fell by more than 10%. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The everyday landscape of occupational therapy (OT) in oncology is underexplored, hindering targeted improvements. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on physician medical records alone, the 231 high-risk participants (mean age 77, 67% women) received recommended care for 53% of 5,569 evaluated clinical circumstances, ranging from 12% for end-of-life care to 78% for diabetes mellitus. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The plans are all normalized such that 50% of the PTV receives 30 Gy. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Compared to TM, MA increased the odds of annual wellness visits and reduced Hispanic-White disparity in annual wellness visits. 2 key findings →
Participants: 129,177 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We found that COVID patients initially experienced substantially longer hospital stays (8.3 vs 4.6 days) and higher 30-day mortality (34% vs 5%) compared to patients without COVID. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 18,383 CM patients PS-matched to 18,383 dialysis patients, unadjusted Cox models showed dialysis transition was associated with higher risk of dementia, MCI, or combined dementia/MCI vs. CM: HRs (95%CIs) 1.40 (1.32-1.48), 1.64 (1.46, 1.85), and 1.42 (1.34, 1.49). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Through 2022, 5% of fee-for-service beneficiaries with dementia received CACP compared to 3% of MA beneficiaries (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Being exposed to a peer who adopted CACP was a strong predictor of providers’ own uptake of CACP. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →