28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
72 patients with PDD or DLB were randomly assigned and started treatment: 34 with memantine and 38 with placebo. 56 (78%) completed the study. 2 key findings →
Participants: 72 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
PBT2 is a copper/zinc ionophore that rapidly restores cognition in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The primary outcome was the comparison of the effect of DBS with the best medical treatment on overall cognitive functioning (Mattis dementia rating scale). 3 key findings →
Participants: 156 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Donanemab-mediated slowing of disease progression occurred across baseline tau PET and plasma P-tau217 levels. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Phosphorylated-tau (p-tau217) is a promising blood-based biomarker for Alzheimer's dementia (AD) in clinical settings. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 779 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
During 11 years of follow-up, women were 96% more likely than men to be diagnosed with clinical AD dementia after adjusting for age and education in the younger age group 60 to 70 years (n = 946; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 3.56) although not in the older age group (70+) (n = 452; hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.53). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,398 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline sleep disturbance was associated with a faster rate of longitudinal CSF Aβ42 decline. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,205 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of quantitative endophenotypes in genetic studies may provide greater power, allowing for the use of powerful statistical methods and a biological model for the effects of the disease-associated genetic variation. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 313 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Statistically significant Pearson correlations between the neuropsychological tests and their tablet equivalents were found for all domains with moderate (r > 0.3) or strong (r > 0.7) correlations in 16 of 17 tests (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AD was characterized by longer time in bed, more bed exits, less snoring, and changes in estimated sleep states. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 13,588 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Between the two versions (paper-based vs. digital) statistically significant correlations were found in all tests, e.g., TMT-A r(48) = 0.63, p < 0.01; TMT-B rs(48) = 0.77, p < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lewy body dementia (LBD) is the second most prevalent dementia, however most genetic risk remains uncharacterized. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma pTau217R matched CSF eMTBR-tau243 and outperformed MTBR-tau243. 5 key findings →
Participants: 242 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventeen studies with cognitively impaired Parkinson's disease patients were included consisting of 222 Parkinson's disease patients with mild cognitive impairment, 68 patients with Parkinson's disease dementia, 289 cognitively unimpaired Parkinson's disease patients and 353 healthy controls. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were 132 846 individuals (mean [SD] age, 80.4 [7.6] years; 61.8% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.5 [4.6]) with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 1, 159 419 individuals (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [7.6] years; 59.7% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.6 [4.7]) with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 2, and 92 328 individuals with a diagnosis of dementia included in cohort 3 (mean [SD] age, 80.9 [7.7] years; 58.5% women; mean [SD] body mass index [BMI], 25.5 [4.7]). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 846 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Participants in the placebo group displayed cognitive and functional decline, whereas lithium-treated patients remained stable over 2 years. 4 key findings →
Participants: 61 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
BDNF levels did not change significantly and were not associated with improvement in overall neuropsychiatric symptoms or in cognitive function. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 1795 participants were enrolled (lecanemab:898; placebo:897). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 1,795 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The safety profile was similar for 20 μg treatment and placebo patients. 5 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
No difference was seen in Clinical Global Impression scores between patients receiving placebo and those receiving linopirdine (n = 189). 4 key findings →
Participants: 382 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Twenty-five out of 44 completed the trial. 5 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review aimed to evaluate the effects of multi-domain interventions on cognition among individuals without dementia. 1 key finding →
Participants: 10,056 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Individuals with multi-domain amnestic mild cognitive impairment (md-aMCI) have an elevated risk of dementia and need interventions that may retain or remediate cognitive function. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Relative to HC, the participants with cTBI had lower CAC (0.10 ± 0.03 vs 0.12 ± 0.03 mm 2 /mm Hg, P = .046) and higher CVR (0.17 ± 0.03 vs 0.15 ± 0.03 mm Hg/mL/min, P = .028). 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 8171 patients with late-life depression, 1443 (17.7 %) had TRLLD. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 8,171 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 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.
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 →