27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The historical roots of Alzheimer's disease provide a sound conceptual basis for linking the behavioral and neurological symptoms of the disease with the frequently associated pathology of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Machine learning methods pool diverse information to perform computer-assisted diagnosis and predict future clinical decline. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Full-length amyloid beta peptides (Abeta(1-40/42)) form neuritic amyloid plaques in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and are implicated in AD pathology. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Increasing evidence is implicating mitochondrial dysfunction as a central factor in the etiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In addition to mental retardation, individuals with Down syndrome (DS) also develop the neuropathological changes typical of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the majority of these individuals exhibit dementia. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have observed hyperactivity in the hippocampal region in individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It is worthwhile to refocus on this important and somewhat neglected incretin hormone. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Amyloid fibrils represent a stable form of many misfolded proteins associated with numerous diseases. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The progressive nature of neurodegeneration suggests an age-dependent process that ultimately leads to synaptic failure and neuronal damage in cortical areas of the brain critical for memory and higher mental functions. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In common forms of Alzheimer disease (AD), anterograde memory impairment is the first deficit to occur. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The BACE1 gene encodes the beta-site APP-cleaving enzyme 1 and has been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The very long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (C18–C22) and n‐3 Omega PUFAs are apparently widely accepted as a part of modern nutrition because of their beneficial effects on metabolism. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study offers evidence of functional and neuroprotective effects of two weeks treatment with a Ptychopetalum olacoides extract against Aβ peptide-induced neurotoxicity in mice. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is one of the most common forms of dementia in persons younger than 65 years. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The 5' untranslated region (UTR) of the APP gene, encompassing 147 base pairs between the transcriptional (+1) and the translational start site, was examined for its role in APP expression. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The existence of an effective biomarker for early detection of Alzheimer disease would facilitate improved diagnosis and stimulate therapeutic trials. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The participant demonstrated 28.6% mastery of the grocery shopping task. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Recent evidences indicate that polymorphisms within the promoter region of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene may elevate the risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study supports the notion that defects in the autophagy pathway and more specifically in mTor and Atg7 are associated with neurodegeneration in DLB cases and alpha-synuclein transgenic models and supports the possibility that modulators of the autophagy pathway might have potential therapeutic effects. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We developed a Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) optimized for screening dementia (MMSE-DS) and its' short form (SMMSE-DS). 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,555 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →