The amyloid hypothesis for Alzheimer's disease (AD) posits a neuron-centric, linear cascade initiated by Aβ and leading to dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alterations in α-synuclein dosage lead to familial Parkinson's disease (PD), and its accumulation results in synucleinopathies that include PD, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and multiple system atrophy (MSA). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite using more home health and hospital services than controls in the baseline preenrollment period, which suggests that they were sicker, participants receiving house calls had 17% lower overall Medicare costs than controls, and there was no indication of poorer quality of care, greater mortality, or underservice. 4 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 9,425 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
57/100
Of 285 297 total patients, 180 283 (63.2%) were female; 586 (0.2%) were American Indian/Alaska Native, 8957 (3.1%) Asian, 28 694 (10.1%) Black, 7406 (2.6%) Hispanic, 1959 (0.7%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 237 017 (83.1%) non-Hispanic White, and 678 (0.2%) multiracial individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 178 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In cognitively unimpaired (CU) adults at baseline, the risk for progression to dementia increased for every decile increase in the ADI state ranking (hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (1.01-1.11), P = .01). 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,699 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 9239 eligible respondents, 5258 (57.7%) were female and 1210 (9.1%) were Black, 574 (4.7%) were Hispanic, and 7297 (84.4%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-two percent of residents had DNR directives, whereas less than 2% had DNH directives. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,962,742 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
57/100
(n = 2,392) had a mean age of 74.4 years, 60.4% were female, and 17.1% were of self-reported Black race. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,392 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On average, participants were aged 63 years and had 16 years of education. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
All ML models outperformed the MMSE alone. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,331 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cross-ancestry sex-stratified analyses identified several loci with evidence of interaction (p 0.05). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 25,284 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study encompassed 479 723 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; 260 730 females [54.4%]), including 271 690 in the YOD analyses and 334 939 in the LOD analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 723 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
DSD is linked to adverse outcomes, compared to dementia alone, like longer hospitalisation [3], mortality [3, 4], functional decline [3] and need for residential care [3]. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 64 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among the 1665 AIBL participants (741 [44.5%] female) and 2029 ADNI participants (925 [45.6%] female), the mean (SD) age at first evaluation was 71.8 (7.1) years and 74.5 (6.7) years, respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Here we show that the associations of 57 metabolites with dementia risk varied by APOE4 genotype or other AD/ADRD risk variants. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The introduction of incretin mimetics (IMs), including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) such as liraglutide and semaglutide, as well as dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor co-agonists (GLP-1/GIP RAs) like tirzepatide, has revolutionized obesity treatment. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
During an average follow-up period of 14.5 years, a total of 9520 (81.1%) participants had used NSAIDs at any given time, and 2091 participants developed dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 11,745 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The human metabolome reflects complex metabolic states affected by genetic and environmental factors. 5 key findings →
Participants: 23,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed high levels of missing data in most cognitive test items - on average 13% and as high as 65%. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 9,755 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In total, 41 participants consented (n=10, 24% participants with Alzheimer disease; n=11, 27% participants with Lewy body disease; and n=20, 49% controls). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 41 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Inter-rater agreement for ID level classification was 95% within sites but 60% between sites. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 673 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Self- and informant-reported ADL and IADL impairments were examined at overall and item levels. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,050 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
57/100
Assistance with daily activities is crucial for persons living with dementia and functional limitations, yet many face substantial challenges in accessing adequate care and support. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample consisted predominantly of women (79% in the intervention group, 69% in the control group), with daughters forming the largest caregiver subgroup (66.6% and 52.4%, respectively). 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 42 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The SHS global burden increased by 74% between 1990 and 2021 to almost 73·5 million individuals, with population growth accounting for only half of that increase. 5 key findings →
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 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.
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 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 →