27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
This large meta-analysis pooled dozens of studies to estimate how many people under age 65 are living with dementia worldwide. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,760,379 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite significant progress, applications of astrocyte biomarkers in AD remain in their early days. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 3,204 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Of 54 adults assessed for eligibility, 11 did not meet study criteria, and 9 declined to participate. 2 key findings →
Participants: 34 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Furthermore, plasma p-tau231 was significantly increased in amyloid-β PET quartiles 2-4, whereas CSF p-tau217 and plasma p-tau181 increased only at quartiles 3-4 and 4, respectively. 2 key findings →
Participants: 588 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Smoothing splines demonstrated that earliest plasma p-tau181 changes occurred even before amyloid-β markers reached abnormal levels, with greater rates of change correlating with increased amyloid-β pathology. 4 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,067 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. 3 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 818 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
After multivariable adjustment, patients showed an odds ratio (OR) 1·61 (95% CI 0·80-3·25) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 4·60 (1·85-11·48) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for diffusion impairment; OR 0·88 (0·66-1·17) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and OR 1·77 (1·05-2·97) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for anxiety or depression, and OR 0·74 (0·58-0·96) for scale 4 versus scale 3 and 2·69 (1·46-4·96) for scale 5-6 versus scale 3 for fatigue or muscle weakness. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 94 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We tested the hypothesis that plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) identifies asymptomatic carriers of familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD)-causing mutations at risk of disease progression. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 277 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At randomization, the mean age is 72, 50% female, 77% with CDR-global score 0.5, and mean MMSE score 23.8. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 464 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,711 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We collected a total of 29 prospective studies for the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 29 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A lower proportion of patients with cancer had palliative care initiated in the home (16 088 [14.5%]) compared with patients with chronic organ failure (6904 [32.8%]; absolute difference, -18.3%) or dementia (3922 [27.9%]; absolute difference, -13.4%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 709 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for palliative care in patients with dementia and the need to identify timely triggers to standardize referral. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 43 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Bilingualism has been linked to improved executive function and delayed onset of dementia, but it is unknown whether similar benefits can be obtained later in life through deliberate intervention. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 76 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The APOE ε4 allele remains the strongest genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer's disease and the APOE ε2 allele the strongest genetic protective factor after multiple large scale genome-wide association studies and genome-wide association meta-analyses. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Genome-wide association studies have discovered numerous genomic loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD); yet the causal genes and variants are incompletely identified. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Pooled evidence from available trials reporting both reduction in amyloid levels and change in cognition suggests that amyloid reduction strategies do not substantially improve cognition. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Topic Visual impairment (VI) and cognitive impairment (CIM) are prevalent age-related conditions that impose substantial burden on the society. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 47 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
change from baseline in Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite score. 5 key findings →
Participants: 189 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 200 participants, 99 were assigned to methylphenidate and 101 to placebo. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Topic The magnitude and direction of the association between vision impairment and incident dementia and cognitive impairment in prospective cohort studies was estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 827 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The study aimed to investigate the relationship between mobile phone use and cognitive impairment using the data of the Prevention and Intervention on Neurodegenerative Disease for Elderly in China (PINDEC) survey. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 21,732 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Fourteen studies assessing OCT-A in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment, or AD were included. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study included 524,975 older adults with dementia who were incident users of ChEIs (donepezil 80.72%, rivastigmine 16.41%, galantamine 2.87%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 524,975 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The study included 47,059 older adults with dementia who were incident users of AChEIs. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 47,059 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 →