59/100
53% of participants were CMV seropositive. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 303 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Most caregivers (72.0%) favored BBBM for AD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Participants: 107 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Six miRNAs (hsa-miR-128-3p, hsa-miR-144-5p, hsa-miR-146a-5p, hsa-miR-26a-5p, hsa-miR-29c-3p and hsa-miR-363-3p) were downregulated in the blood of individuals with low cognitive performance on the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 830 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Both total CogEvo and MMSE scores significantly decreased with age. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 209 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study included 1 789 participants (1 206 with AD, 111 with DLB, 49 with VaD, and 423 with NC). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 789 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The GWAS identified a significant single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), rs17149074, within the C9orf171 (CFAP77) gene region that showed significant association with changes in CSF t-tau over time. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
DL-ADprob was independently prognostic in both ADNI-MCI (P < .001) and HABS-CU (P = .048) sets. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,050 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a global healthcare challenge lacking a simple and affordable detection method. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,671 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease and the leading cause of dementia. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
A total number of 450 participants (Mean age = 69.5 years; SD = 10.8) have been screened at different recruitment sites throughout the country, among whom 425 participants (94.4%) met the selection criteria. 2 key findings →
Participants: 450 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
59/100
Baseline pRBD was associated with faster decline in global cognition and all cognitive domains, including verbal episodic memory, visuospatial ability, executive function, language, and processing speed. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Numerous longitudinal studies suggest a strong association between cardiovascular risk factors and cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The mean score for affiliate stigma of dementia family caregivers was 48.09 ± 16.38 (range: 22-86). 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 727 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The evaluation of blood biomarkers on an automated platform exhibited high diagnostic accuracy for AD pathophysiology, and pTau 217 showed excellent diagnostic accuracy to identify participants with AD in a consecutive sample representing the routine clinical practice in a specialized memory unit. 1 key finding →
Participants: 130 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This comprehensive analysis demonstrated that the variance in AD blood biomarker concentrations was mainly explained by age, with minor contributions from cognition, brain atrophy, and genetics, conversely to CSF measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,323 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Phase 3 (NIH stage 1B) is a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the intervention versus the Health Education Program control. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Clinical data alone poorly predicted phenoconversion in RBD due to synucleinopathy patients. 3 key findings →
Participants: 173 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The role of microglia in the amyloid cascade of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is debated due to conflicting findings. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
58/100
The analysis involved 4674 participants (2904 [62.13%] female and 1770 [37.87%] male; mean [SD] age, 41.51 [13.41] years). 5 key findings →
Participants: 906 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We aim to investigate the relationships between the population characteristics of patients with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and their Healthcare Utilization (HU) during the COVID-19 pandemic. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study provides a comprehensive review of the last 10 years of research on neuroinflammation and AD, including the number and impact of research findings, research hotspots, and future trends. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,833 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research evidence indicating common metabolic mechanisms through which type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases risk of late-onset Alzheimer's dementia (LOAD) has accumulated over recent decades. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
The recently published results of the 18-month randomized controlled trial of lecanemab, reporting the efficacy of the drug in slowing the progression of early Alzheimer disease, quickly led to approval by the FDA and widespread acceptance of lecanemab treatment. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The proposed method offers a fully automated procedure, providing an opportunity to develop an inexpensive, broadly accessible, and easy-to-administer screening tool for MCI-to-AD progression prediction, facilitating development of remote assessment. 1 key finding →
Participants: 166 Evidence: low
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 →