27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
In its early stages, Parkinson's disease (P.D.) may be difficult to distinguish from major depression (M.D.) leading to inappropriate management. 2 key findings →
Participants: 30 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Vulnerability of specific brain regions and neuronal populations is a characteristic feature of Alzheimer disease and Down syndrome. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A large number of familial Alzheimer disease (FAD) kindreds were examined to determine whether mutations in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene could be responsible for the disease. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
1. Dementia: Significance, Definition, and Epidemiology 2. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The olfactory bulb (OB), with its comparatively simple and well-delineated connectivity, presents an interesting system for examining cell-specific pathology in neurologic degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
One was associated with moderate to marked cerebral amyloid deposition ("pathological aging"), while the other had either minimal or no amyloid deposition ("normal aging"). 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This finding is consistent with the notion that schizophrenia involves pathology of and dysfunction within a widely distributed neocortical-limbic neural network that has been implicated in, among other activities, the performance of cognitive tasks requiring working memory. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The A4 or beta-peptide (39 to 43 amino acid residues) is the principal proteinaceous component of amyloid deposits in Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
These preliminary findings suggest that the EXIT is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of executive impairment at the bedside. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current palliative treatments are attempts to minimize the morbidity of abnormal behaviors and medical complications associated with dementia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Since Kraepelin's first description of dementia praecox in 1889 many data and theories have been published on the onset and course of schizophrenia. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The brains of individuals with Down's syndrome in their 40's and 50's begin to develop changes that are otherwise seen only in patients with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Thirty-four unique-sequence microclones were isolated from a previously described microdissection library of human chromosome 21 and were regionally mapped using a cell hybrid mapping panel which consists of six cell hybrids and divides chromosome 21 into eight regions. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 →