27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
AD patients had significantly higher AD-RAI (0.91 ± 0.25) and more pronounced hippocampal atrophy (0.36 ± 0.09) compared to MCI and HC (P 0.9 for distinguishing BPSD from non-BPSD patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 40 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundAccurate classification of cognitive impairment in population studies is challenging. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Accurate differentiation of Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and healthy control (HC) is critical for early diagnosis and intervention of brain disorders. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 81 stroke survivors (mean age 61.9±13.9 years), 72.8% had ischemic stroke, and 27.2% had hemorrhagic stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The 3D Nested Hierarchical Transformer model helped to accurately diagnose Alzheimer disease based on structural brain MRI scans. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The fMRI entropy classifier matched the tau PET model in accuracy and outperformed it in F1 score (0.64 vs. 0.61) and area under the curve (AUC; 0.73 vs. 0.67). 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Symptom extraction across the 7 domains achieved high accuracy with AUROCs ranging from 0.97 to 0.99. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundTo date, cholinomimetics remain central in the pharmacotherapy of Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This exploratory, interpretivist, pre-implementation qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 15 participants—four people living with dementia and 11 carers—to identify their needs, preferences, and perspectives to inform the design and implementation of an in-home respite service. 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Respondents (N=69) identified access to resources as the most important unmet need for caregivers (53%). 5 key findings →
Participants: 69 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There is limited experience in combining interdisciplinary rehabilitation for persons with dementia and caregiver support. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Three themes were identified: (1) Struggling with conflicting emotions and social challenges - caregivers reported experiencing stress, physical exhaustion, and emotional strain due to constant availability and the challenges of managing behavioral changes, further intensified by isolation and shrinking social networks. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Most dementia caregiver programs focus on a single caregiver, overlooking diverse caregiving networks that include family, friends, and relatives who provide care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
LDCs were recruited within the planned timeframe. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Participants' attitude toward Alzheimer's disease and related dementia scores were significantly associated with employment status, race/ethnicity (Hispanic), and instrumental activities of daily living. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In phase 1, the mean system usability scores increased from 65.4 (SD 11.8) in round 1 to 73.8 (SD 15.9) in round 3, exceeding the benchmark of 68. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The program demonstrated good acceptability, adoption, and fidelity and was effective in instigating behavior change. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
average annual dementia incidence in White, but not Black, adults (1% versus 0%), due to hypertensive individuals' greater survival, and reduce annual ASCVD events more in Black than White adults (13% versus 5%). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study included 2.35 million beneficiaries in 2019 and 1.85 million in 2021. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 2021, LOAD demonstrated a substantially higher global burden than EOAD: incidence cases (8,455,150 [95% UI: 5,818,063-11,461,560] vs. 1,381,906 [894,768-1,963,453]), mortality cases (1,879,291 [471,472-4,968,222] vs. 73,386 [14,059-232,170]), and DALYs (32,558,570 [14,907,368-71,154,572] vs. 3,774,117 [1,696,439-8,881,154]). 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Social distance showed no significant differences in the normal aging and mild stage of dementia across all vignettes. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study predicts how sociodemographic trends-smaller family sizes, increased longevity, and marital patterns-could affect family care for people with dementia through 2060. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With a burgeoning dementia burden driven by unique demographic, genetic, and socioeconomic factors of East Asia, the region has made significant investments in understanding disease mechanisms, developing biomarkers, and exploring therapeutic approaches. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Early diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) with mild dementia is becoming increasingly important to enable patients to receive appropriate treatment with available amyloid-targeting therapies. 5 key findings →
Design: narrative review 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 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 →