29,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The most frequent human apolipoprotein (apo) E isoforms, E3 and E4, differentially affect Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk (E4 > E3) and age of onset (E4 < E3). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
One of the pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease is the accumulation of amyloid plaques in the extracellular space in the brain. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Inheritance of the APOE epsilon4 allele is associated with increased risk of late posttraumatic seizures. 5 key findings →
Participants: 106 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Forty of 105 (38%) were classified as NC-low, and 65 (62%) as NC-high. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia worldwide, is a mixed proteinopathy (β-amyloid, tau and other proteins). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Previous studies have prioritized trait-relevant cell types by looking for an enrichment of genome-wide association study (GWAS) signal within functional regions. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APOE2 is associated with less cognitive decline during aging. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The degree of coronary artery disease is independently associated with the cardinal neuropathological lesions of Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Participants: 42 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease (AD), a progressive and neurodegenerative disease, is the most common form of dementia with high incidence in elderly people. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Although possession of the APOE epsilon4 allele is a risk factor for AD in old age, it does not modify the progression of the disease during the preclinical period. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Higher phosphatidylcholine intake was associated with lower risk of incident dementia and better cognitive performance in men in eastern Finland. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
APOE affects microstructural properties of the brain WM from early adulthood, but the specific allelic effects do not directly reflect the associated risk of developing Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This review highlights a great heterogeneity in RCTs design of drugs for A/A in AD and some key methodological issues such as definition of A/A, choice of outcome measures and caregiver participation that could be addressed by an expert consensus to optimize future trials design. 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results from 5 patients with eAD treated with LD-WBRT (10 Gy in 5 fractions) demonstrate a positive safety profile and provide preliminary, hypothesis-generating data to suggest that this treatment stabilizes or improves cognition. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We expect to demonstrate that personalized TMS intervention has a measurable positive impact in cognition, emotion, daily living activities and brain connectivity, thus representing a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
As our population ages, the incidence and prevalence of Alzheimer disease (AD) will increase dramatically. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
We are conducting a single-blinded, National Institutes of Health stage-2, randomized clinical trial to establish the efficacy of AB versus a time-matched and dose-matched education control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) in improving self-reported and objective outcomes of physical, cognitive, and emotional functions in 260 participants. 3 key findings →
Participants: 37 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We will use results from this study to develop the first live video telehealth dyadic resiliency intervention focused on the prevention of chronic emotional distress in couples shortly after ADRD diagnoses. 2 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of two doses of anapsos in comparison with placebo on cognitive performance, brain bioelectrical activity pattern and cerebral hemodynamic parameters in patients with mild to moderate senile dementia of vascular type and Alzheimer type. 3 key findings →
Participants: 22 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Data available on the relationship between salivary function and specific drug therapy are sparse. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our study shows that ICERS of PFA combined with MI and MI alone amounted to €21,443 and €21,543 respectively per improved Z score point compared to the placebo and are below the WTP of €50,000 while the ICER of PFA alone amounted to €111,720 per improved Z score point. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,525 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This article primarily describes the design of a monocentre, randomized, doubleblind trial to be conducted in France to evaluate the effect of the combination of tDCS and cognitive training on apathy compared to a group treated exclusively by cognitive training (sham tDCS). 3 key findings →
Participants: 16 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The INTε4+ group did not seem markedly more responsive to the guidance than the other groups. 2 key findings →
Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Since the value of scientific evidence generally revolves around probability and chance, it is concluded that the data presented here pose a powerful argument in support of the proposal that AD should be classified as a vascular disorder. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Repetitive brain trauma is associated with a progressive neurological deterioration, now termed as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). 2 key findings →
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 29,780 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 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), 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.
1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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 →