27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The aims of this study were to identify candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to generate SNP to gene to pathway hypotheses. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 370,542 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
GWAS of Alzheimer's disease have been predominantly based on European ancestry cohorts with clinically diagnosed patients. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Nicotinamide riboside (NR) increases blood levels of NAD+, a cofactor central to energy metabolism, and improves brain function in some rodent models of neurodegeneration. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Identifying ancestry-specific molecular profiles of late-onset Alzheimer's Disease (LOAD) in brain tissue is crucial to understand novel mechanisms and develop effective interventions in non-European, high-risk populations. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 731 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 15 eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 109 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
EA intervention could increase the MoCA score and improve the neutral and consistency response of the STROOP test in VCIND patients (P < 0.05). fMRI functional connectivity analysis showed that, after EA, the default mode network (DMN) function of the posterior cingulate gyrus, left middle frontal gyrus, left anterior cingulate gyrus, left and right superior temporal gyrus, right insula, left precentral gyrus and other brain regions were significantly higher than that in the control group. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 70 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From 10,037 records, 82 studies were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No significant between-group effects of exenatide on ADAS-Cog11 score (p = 0.17) were detected. 5 key findings →
Participants: 17 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
EQW affected FCN2 (Cohen's d -0.019), PAI-1 (Cohen's d -0.033), sVCAM-1 (Cohen's d 0.035) and a cytokine-cytokine cluster (Cohen's d 0.037) significantly compared with placebo. 4 key findings →
Participants: 13,752 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We screened 18,884 papers and included 135 studies. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 135 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BackgroundPreclinical and clinical evidence suggest that low-dose cannabinoids could ameliorate Alzheimer's disease (AD) signs and symptoms. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The muscarinic receptor agonist xanomeline improved cognition in phase 2 trials in Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 60 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fosgonimeton and placebo were shown to be safe and well-tolerated across all doses. 5 key findings →
Participants: 48 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Compared with placebo, the amino acid mixture did not improve NPI-12, MMSE, TMT-A and B or CDR scores. 4 key findings →
Participants: 36 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No differences between treated groups and placebo in adverse events or in study completion. 5 key findings →
Participants: 542 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 6-month cycling aerobic exercise intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness and the dose-response relationship in community-dwelling older adults with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
How and when education improves cognitive capacity is an issue of profound societal importance. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,009 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 45 reviews with 212 meta-analyses were synthesized. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 45 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Forty-five studies involving over 730 000 participants were included. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Caregivers often prioritize the needs of the care recipient and neglect their own health needs. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 243 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 91,881 participants (mean age 59.3 at baseline, 55.0% female participants), 16,507 incident ADRD cases were identified from Medicare claims (1999-2016, mean follow-up 9.3 years). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 91,881 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The need for large sample sizes has led to collaborative efforts, such as the Prospective Studies Collaboration (an individual participant meta-analysis of data from 61 studies and more than a million participants11) that has demonstrated conclusively that a continuous increase in blood pressure corresponds with an increased risk of vascular death across all age groups (see Figure 1 that illustrates the importance of a large sample size (about 500 000 participants) for detecting this association).12 Sample size is also of particular importance in the current era of genome-wide association studies, where many investigations are aiming to detect either small effects from common variants or large effects from rare variants.13 Absolute risk of ischaemic heart disease mortality by usual systolic blood pressure and age at risk in 5000, 50 000, and 500 000 participants. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood-based biomarkers (BBM) are becoming easily detectable tools to reveal pathological changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist and antidiabetic drug, has shown neuroprotective effects in animal models. 3 key findings →
Design: phase-2-trial Participants: 204 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this sample of 101 219 patients, 52.7% were women and mean age was 62.6 years (SD, 9.3 years) as of November 1, 2016. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 101,219 Evidence: moderate
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 →