The PACT study addresses the rapidly increasing prevalence of dementia. 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
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
Amyloid-beta 42 (Aβ42) and phosphorylated tau (pTau) levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) reflect core features of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) more directly than clinical diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Participants: 8,074 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled studies at lower risk of bias comparing ChEI treatment with placebo or usual treatment, for 6 months or longer, in patients with dementia of any type. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 79,153 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Seventeen studies were identified: thirteen cohort studies, two case-control studies, and two nested case-control studies. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Seventeen risk/protective factors met criteria for the algorithm to estimate risk for any dementia including age, sex, education, hypertension, midlife obesity, midlife high cholesterol, diabetes, insufficient physical activity, depression, traumatic brain injury, atrial fibrillation, smoking, social engagement, cognitive engagement, fish consumption (diet), stroke, and insomnia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 408 participants were included (n = 221 were LATE-NC+/HS-, n = 145 were LATE-NC+/HS+, and n = 42 were LATE-NC-/HS+). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 221 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72/100
Of 343 participants, the mean (SD) age was 72.56 (7.24) years, and 157 (51.1%) were female. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 343 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
72/100
Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 genotype was the main risk factor for both ARIA types; ARIA-E incidence was further associated with treatment dose, affecting the 55% of ApoE ε4 carriers in the high-dose aducanumab treatment group. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In this study, risk of dementia significantly increased after ischemic stroke, independent of vascular risk factors. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 379 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC) and Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC) are each associated with substantial cognitive impairment in aging populations. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,665 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of 4267 participants with probable dementia in HRS, the mean (SD) age was 82.2 (7.6) years, 2930 (survey-weighted 69.4%) were female, and 785 (survey-weighted 12.1%) identified as Black. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,404 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
72/100
This fully-automated and available blood-based biomarker assay therefore may be useful for early detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring of AD. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 463 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Encouraging results were found for several biomarkers, alone or in combination. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Preclinical studies indicate an age-associated accumulation of senescent cells across multiple organ systems. 3 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among 16 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.6 (4.4) years; 9 participants were women, and 7 were men. 5 key findings →
Participants: 20 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
71/100
The non-linear function indicates that a higher dose is not necessarily better in multidomain interventions. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 749 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean (SD) age of the study population sample (N = 3496) was 76.4 (7.6) years, and 2095 participants (60%) were female. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,496 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although studies in animal models suggest that TREM2 is protective against Alzheimer's pathology, its effect on tau pathology and its potential beneficial role in people with Alzheimer's disease is still unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 155 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This systematic review demonstrated that adherence to the Mediterranean diet and other healthy dietary patterns in middle age can protect neurocognition later in life. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This review highlights the complexities of pain in NH residents and has implications for both clinical practice and future research. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the precuneus, we observed an inverted U-shaped pattern of novelty-related activity across groups, with higher activity in SCD and MCI compared with HC, but not in patients with AD who showed relatively lower activity than MCI. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 499 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood exosomes, which are extracellular vesicles secreted by living cells into the circulating blood, are regarded as a relatively noninvasive novel tool for monitoring brain physiology and disease states. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The rapidly increasing worldwide population of older adults, along with the increasing prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia in this population, is a growing health-care problem. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
71/100
Polysomnography (PSG) studies of sleep changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) have reported but not fully established the relationship between sleep disturbances and AD. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.
1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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