30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The human voice has emerged as a promising digital biomarker, with vocal characteristics reflecting physiological and cognitive changes associated with conditions like dementia and Parkinson's disease. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The PACT study addresses the rapidly increasing prevalence of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study will develop and test novel in-home technology to improve family caregiving relationships. 1 key finding →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 30 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The adaptive computerized cognitive training was not substantially better than non-adaptive, but may improve memory. 3 key findings →
Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 90 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The DemTab Study did not improve self-reported guideline adherence in PCP. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 28 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Psychotic symptoms, defined as the occurrence of delusions or hallucinations, are frequent in Alzheimer disease (AD with psychosis, AD + P). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The body of evidence for biomarkers is not large and is variable across the different types of biomarkers. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Participants: 70 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Noninvasive biomarkers of early neuronal injury may help identify cognitively normal individuals at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 196 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These outcomes illustrate the potential benefits of rasagiline on clinical and neuroimaging measures in patients with mild to moderate AD. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 50 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a remarkable challenge for healthcare in the 21st century. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study team reported a significant change in diagnoses and patient medication when tau PET was added to an already extensive diagnostic workup that included cerebrospinal fluid AD biomarkers. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 878 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Proposed guideline questions, benefits, and harms were largely similar between groups, but only the experimental group proposed outcomes relating to development of cognitive impairment at specific time points and rate of progression. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Souvenaid aims to improve synapse formation and function. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our results highlight the clinical variability of PSP and the high prevalence of phenotypes other than Richardson's syndrome. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 206 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at-risk of developing dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 430 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients with parkinsonism pose a diagnostic challenge. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This randomized trial gave hearing aids plus counseling, or only general health education, to 977 older adults with untreated hearing loss, then tracked cognition for three years. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 977 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In two randomized crossover studies involving 48 healthy, cognitively normal adults (registered on ClinicalTrials.gov), researchers measured brain and blood markers after normal sleep versus sleep deprivation. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This randomized trial of 406 spouse caregivers of people with Alzheimer's tested whether counseling and support (six counseling sessions, mandatory support groups, and on-call phone counseling) could delay nursing home placement. 3 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 406 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This meta-analysis pooled 14 studies of the Mini-Cog, a 3-minute memory-and-clock-drawing test doctors can give in a routine visit, to see how well it catches dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 7,194 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooling 29 studies and over 2 million people, this meta-analysis found that people who were more physically active, especially at moderate-to-vigorous intensity, had a notably lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, though the protective association was stronger in studies with shorter follow-up periods. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,068,519 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For music-based therapeutic interventions compared to usual care, we found moderate-certainty evidence that, at the end of treatment, music-based therapeutic interventions probably improved depressive symptoms slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to -0.04; 9 studies, 441 participants), and we found low-certainty evidence that it may have improved overall behavioural problems (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.02; 10 studies, 385 participants). 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,720 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The average life expectancy of people with dementia at time of diagnosis ranged from 5.7 years at age 65 to 2.2 at age 85 in men and from 8.0 to 4.5, respectively, in women. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,553,960 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The panel cautions users of this guideline that there is significant variability in diagnostic test accuracy and many commercially available BBM tests do not meet these thresholds, especially using a single cutoff. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic-review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Despite the relatively low risk reduction associated with higher adherence to MedDiet among elderly, it should be considered that this population is the most affected. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 65,955 Evidence: moderate
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events