Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the leading cause of senile dementia, lacks effective therapies. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Herpes Zoster (HZ), caused by the reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV), is a common infectious disease. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Plasma pTau217 levels serve as a scalable, non-invasive marker of AD-pathology across Lewy body diseases, PSP/CBS, and MCI/CU populations. 2 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
-heterozygous human brain tissue was reactivated in response to neuroinflammation caused by exposure to other pathogens. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Multidomain interventions may benefit younger older adults or those with overly strict or lenient HbA1c control; however, these findings need confirmation in future studies. 3 key findings →
Participants: 531 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A repeated measures ANOVA showed that in comparison to the control group, both intervention groups significantly improved mood, quality of life, MIND diet score and all COM-B components at follow-up (p < 0.05). 5 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Out of 180 subjects, 74 showed short-term training gain transfer that was maintained over 3 months in 19 subjects. 5 key findings →
Participants: 235 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This work was supported by a Crossover grant (Maintaining Optimal Cognitive Functioning In Aging [MOCIA] 17611) of the Dutch Research Council (NWO), granted in December 2019. 5 key findings →
Participants: 102 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
117 participants have complete data (mean age: 73 ± 7.4). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The intricate relationship between dietary habits and cognitive function is gaining increasing attention, with a focus on the gut-brain axis as a modifiable target for intervention. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 266 older adults with hypertension were surveyed in this study, of whom 108 reported having fallen once or more in the past year. 5 key findings →
Participants: 266 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The control cohort (n = 36.5 million) was 1:1 PSM for age and sex with the HL cohort (n = 1.77 million) in which 0.28% of patients developed delirium compared to 0.74% in the HL cohort (OR 2.66, 95% CI = 2.58-2.75). 5 key findings →
Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
To the Editor: The standardized management of pain–agitation–delirium (PAD) represents a fundamental component of clinical practice in intensive care units (ICUs).[1] Evidence-based analgesia and sedation strategies not only alleviate patients’ physiological discomfort and psychological distress, but also significantly reduce mechanical ventilation duration, improve long-term prognosis, and optimize healthcare resource allocation.[1,2] Equally crucial is delirium management, as evidenced by studies demonstrating that delirium duration independently predicts mortality risk, hospital stay length, healthcare expenditures, and acquired dementia incidence.[3] Although existing studies have explored PAD management practices, most rely on clinicians’ subjective recall that may distort objective clinical realities and fail to reflect distinctive characteristics.[4] Therefore, this nationwide multicenter cross-sectional study, initiated by the Critical Care Analgesia and Sedation Quality Control Subspecialty Group under the China National Center for Medical Quality Control in Critical Care Medicine, aims to investigate the current status of PAD management in China. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,627 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
From the database searches, 4796 records were identified. 5 key findings →
Participants: 12 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria after critical appraisal. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
48/100
Among 52 participants recruited, 27 were former caregivers, 16 were current caregivers, and nine were persons with dementia; experiences reflected Alzheimer's (n = 18), sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob (n = 12), Lewy body (n = 7), and other dementias (n = 15). 5 key findings →
Participants: 18 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is characterised by white matter hyperintensities (WMH) and contributes to stroke and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are neuroimaging markers linked to an elevated risk of cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 60 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 3413 participants (mean age: 59 ± 14 years, 53.4% women), 11% had prevalent CVD or AF, 8% had prevalent CVD, and 4% had prevalent AF. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,413 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 225 patients (mean age 65.4 years, 54.2% male), MCR prevalence was 16.4%. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 225 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The primary outcome of this clinical trial is the change in the Vascular Dementia Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale from baseline to 12 months. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,052 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Dementia is a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality. 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) launched in England in 2019 to expand the multidisciplinary primary care workforce, but its impact on workload since implementation is unclear. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 986 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Many studies have examined factors associated with individuals of high or low healthcare spending in a given year. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,729 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) are becoming increasingly prevalent and are predicted to affect up to 153 million globally by 2050. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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 28,580 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.
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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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 →