27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
These findings provide no evidence of a group-level Alzheimer-related p-tau217 elevation in young people with DSRD and support DSRD as a condition distinct from Alzheimer’s disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is increasingly recognised as a potential preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease, yet the physiological mechanisms underlying its progression remain poorly understood. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Epidemiological studies consistently indicate a two- to threefold increased risk of dementia among individuals with schizophrenia, although estimates vary due to diagnostic and ascertainment biases. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 500 eligible participants (71% female, 95% non-Latino White, mean [SD] age at cohort dementia onset = 88 [7] years, mean [SD] years from onset to death = 4 [3]), only 54% received a timely diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's Disease (AD), Parkinson's Disease (PD), Lewy Body Disease (LBD), and related dementias, represent a global health challenge, particularly in aging populations. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MCI patients showed significantly reduced plasma levels of TGF-β1 and increased TNF-α concentrations compared to other participants. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 37 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cognitive decline and dementia represent major and growing global health challenges, driven largely by population aging and increased longevity. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a sample of 2,599 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age 78.4 years, 52.9% female, 81.8% White), we identified a total of 5,677 hospitalization claims. 5 key findings →
Participants: 5,677 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A case-control GWAS was performed in the UK Biobank to identify genetic variants associated with postoperative delirium, adjusted for age, sex, genetic chip, and the first 10 principal components. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Eighteen members of the public-including patients, carers, and individuals with lived experience of both roles-along with two local board members and one representative from a statutory health and social care body, participated and were actively involved in developing the framework and co-producing outputs through structured small-group discussions. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
End-of-life care in elderly patients with serious advanced illness sits at the intersection of patient autonomy, family involvement, clinical judgment, and resource allocation. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 358 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Between 2000 and 2024, deaths from stroke, heart disease, and HIV decreased, whereas reported deaths from AD increased 134%. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) exhibit distinct neuropathological hallmarks, with AD defined by cortical amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles, while VaD arises primarily from cerebrovascular disease (CeVD). 4 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) are at high risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet accessible tools for routine clinical screening of AD in individuals with DS remain limited. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dementia in individuals with Down syndrome (DS) is the leading cause of early-onset cognitive decline occurring before the age of 50. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The introduction of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies marks a major shift in Alzheimer's disease (AD) care, moving treatment toward biological modification and reshaping diagnostic and organizational models. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder marked by decreased amyloid-beta (Aβ) clearance, enhanced Aβ aggregation, an increased risk of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and blood-brain barrier (BBB) dysfunction. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid-β are the first approved disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains the leading cause of dementia in Europe, with limited therapeutic options despite decades of research. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No amyloid-related imaging abnormalities occurred. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
MODERN MEDICINE VERSUS LIFESTYLE MEDICINE Conventional biomedicine excels in acute care, diagnostics, therapeutics and emergencies. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 5353 MA beneficiary observations (1239 [23.1%] aged 65-74 years; 3127 [58.4%] aged ≥75 years; 1785 male [33.3%]), 1629 (30.4%) reported a diagnosis of ADRD, and 3724 (69.6%) did not report an ADRD diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a sample of 1218 new HCBS users (75% female, 77% Black; mean [SD] age, 70.5 [7.5] years), Medicaid HCBS initiation was associated with a decrease in probability of ED use (-2.70 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.18 to -1.22 percentage points) and a decrease in probability of inpatient discharge (-2.63 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.75 to -1.51 percentage points). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Oral health is strongly associated with overall health. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,488 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 5757 participants (21.7% Black, 20.3% Latinx, 58.1% AORE), we found lower odds of amyloid positivity in Black (odds ratio [OR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.83) and Latinx (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.91) compared to AORE. 4 key findings →
Participants: 5,757 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 →