30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
MES-defined cognitive impairment (≤-2 standard deviation [SD] deviation after adjustment for demographics) was identified in 12.4% of participants. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In participants who progressed to amyloid-positive MCI, plasma p-tau181/Aβ42 and GFAP diverged from stable controls earliest (about 13 and 12 years before symptom onset, respectively), followed by Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, and NfL, all of which became abnormal before symptom onset. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study analyzed 871 eyes from 439 participants (230 APOE ε4 noncarriers and 209 carriers). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 58 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Although no overall EF benefit was observed, RE improved attentional/inhibitory control in cognitively normal older adults. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 90 Evidence: null result
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In a pooled sample of multiple selected cohorts of cognitively unimpaired older adults, higher plasma p-tau217 levels were consistently associated with increased risk of clinical progression and accelerated cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 2,684 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 23 558 people without pre-existing dementia, 4135 (17·6%) had an admission with delirium. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 23,558 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frailty, comorbidities, and other age-related diseases were associated with a higher risk of dementia but did not account for the elevated dementia risk observed after severe infections. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 449,223 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease and coronary artery disease are common late-life chronic conditions and share multiple risk factors, including the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele. 4 key findings →
Design: RCT Participants: 1,177 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In this multicenter randomized clinical trial among older adults with family history of dementia and/or self-reported subjective cognitive decline, exercise, IRVR, or both did not result in statistically significant differences in improvements in cognitive function over 24 months. 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,290 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 11 601 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.18 [9.41] years; 5569 male [48.0%]), 9145 (78.8%) were exposed to at least 1 ACE indicator, 4241 (36.6%) to at least 1 AAE indicator, and 3531 (30.4%) to both ACE and AAE markers. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 601 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings provide no evidence of a group-level Alzheimer-related p-tau217 elevation in young people with DSRD and support DSRD as a condition distinct from Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 132 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Baseline SPPB-defined physical frailty was associated with longitudinal clinical progression and IRRs during lecanemab treatment. 5 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 187 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Lecanemab exhibited favorable 12-month safety, with no clear evidence of cognitive decline, and BBMs hold potential for treatment guidance. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,042 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 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.
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.
1,040 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 965 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