Frontotemporal dementia associated with granulin (GRN) mutations presents asymmetric brain atrophy. 4 key findings →
Participants: 52 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
52/100
Group comparisons revealed significantly decreased within-network connectivity in salience-ventral attention, cognitive control, and default mode network in participants with postoperative delirium (n=31) compared with non-delirious participants (n=89; non-parametric permutation test, 1000 iterations, P<0.05). 5 key findings →
Participants: 31 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
Compared to APOE ε4 non-carriers, APOE ε4 carriers had lower rsFC in temporal DMN, but only in non-Hispanic Whites. 3 key findings →
Participants: 166 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
Ninety-one eyes of AD patients and 53 eyes of patients with other dementias were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
SSAE-3/5 scores correlated with BGTS scores, with high inter-reader intraclass correlation coefficients across all scales. 3 key findings →
Participants: 75 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CAA-PRS was significantly associated with pathological CAA (OR = 1.766, p < 0.001), with an AUC of 0.783 overall and 0.766 (OR = 1.780, p = 0.002) in those with high amyloid burden. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
52/100
Overall, 304 patients receiving cholinesterase inhibitors/memantine also received anticholinergics. 5 key findings →
Participants: 304 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We found that 51.9% of DLB patients were ever prescribed a ChEI, and those who were prescribed a ChEI had a greater diagnosis interval. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Conventional parallel group randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are too large, long, expensive and insensitive to clinical change to meet the urgent need for an effective treatment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and hearing loss (HL) are major age-related public health challenges with emerging evidence suggesting their interconnection. 2 key findings →
Participants: 349 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Visual impairment is common in people living with dementia and regular ophthalmological exams may improve their quality of life. 1 key finding →
Participants: 660 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
111 out of 287 participants had hearing impairment. 5 key findings →
Participants: 287 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
RECENT FINDINGS: MetS was associated with lower domain-specific and global cognitive function in most cross-sectional studies, but findings from longitudinal studies are not consistent. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 717 articles were identified, showing an upward trend in annual publications. 5 key findings →
Participants: 717 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment and dementia, even with no overt stroke. 4 key findings →
Participants: 171 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline depression and low cognitive reserve significantly increased the risk of subsequent dementia at follow-up. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,099 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The paper aimed to compare how factors previously identified as predictive factors for cognitive decline and dementia related to cognitive performance on the one hand and brain health on the other. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,707 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Education partially mediated the effect of adolescent cognition on CI in the cognitive assessment aample and AD8 in the questionnaire sample (Ps < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive reserve and frailty are factors associated with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →
Participants: 908 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
166 patients were consecutively enrolled (mean age was 85.7 years old, females composed 68%); 25% had a diagnosis of amnestic mild cognitive impairment, and 75% had a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 166 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This narrative review aimed to explore the existing knowledge in order to examine the multiple forms of late-life depression (LLD) within a non-neurodegenerative or a neurodegenerative context, in particular Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Late-life depression (LLD) increases risk for dementia and brain pathology, but possibly this is only true for one or more symptom profiles of LLD. 1 key finding →
Participants: 4,354 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 66 patients with MDD (n = 50) and BD (n = 16) were analyzed. 5 key findings →
Participants: 50 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We observed that greater social isolation was related to increased anxiety in people with cognitive impairment (coefficients = 0.7242, t = 2.51, p = 0.015), adjusting for severity of cognitive impairment, race, pain, depression, activities of daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,343 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The predictors of the Social Loneliness factors were as follows; 1) perceived social support (R2 = 0.33): Neuroticism (β= 0.353), depression (β= 0.205), and perceived health (β= 0.133); 2) social participation (R2 = 0.24): Conscientiousness (β= -0.344) and Extraversion (β= -0.263); 3) use of communication technologies (R2 = 0.44): age (β= 0.409), type of cohabitation (β= 0.331), cognitive reserve (β= -0.303), and Conscientiousness (β= -0.247); all p < 0.05. 3 key findings →
Participants: 105 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →