27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Explainability methods applied to deep learning models for Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging produce attribution maps that vary substantially across methods and architectures, yet no validated quantitative framework exists for determining which method most faithfully localises attribution signal within established AD neuroimaging biomarker anatomy at the individual subject level. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Understanding how a stable structural connectome supports flexible cognition, especially in aging, is a fundamental question in neuroscience. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The phenotypic measures “Slope” and “dMMSE/dt” consistently showed strong performance across a range of data distributions, while “Time-to-MMSE10” was particularly effective in cohorts with a higher proportion of individuals experiencing severe cognitive decline. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 500 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study reveals a myelin-mediated mechanism of rTMS action in AD, demonstrating the potential of promoting myelination as a novel therapeutic strategy for alleviating AD-related cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Reported dementia-classification performance depends on how the label is defined, which clinical information the model sees, and whether participants are separated between training and test data. 5 key findings →
Participants: 150 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
MTHFR C677T homozygosity was independently associated with vascular dementia (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1–8.9; p=0.027) and showed clustering with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We compared global and domain-level cognitive performance in older adults without a prior dementia diagnosis based on whether their cohabiting spouse had Alzheimer’s disease. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 350 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Chronological age and plasma p⍰tau217 each predicts cognitive decline, but whether their prognostic associations interact is unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,741 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
HbA1c levels had warning value for cognitive impairment in non diabetes patients with WMH, and a nonlinear correlation exists between HbA1c and WMH-related cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 497 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Accurate long-term forecasting of cognitive trajectories across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum is essential for early intervention, personalized prognosis, patient stratification, and clinical trial enrichment. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Insulin resistance is increasingly recognized as a metabolic factor associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, its relevance to hippocampal structural changes—a key pathological feature of AD—across disease stages is not fully understood. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While loss of NMDA receptors (NMDARs) is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) severity, the effect of sex or the relationship between regional NMDAR density and antemortem cognitive status across the AD spectrum has not been examined. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In dialect-dominant, educationally diverse elderly, Mini-cog provides superior diagnostic accuracy for MCI versus HKBC and MoCA, and comparable accuracy for dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 450 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The present work builds upon progress in foundation artificial intelligence (AI) models for thepurpose of supporting the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Irrespective of ERG modality, ADRD was consistently associated with retinal dysfunction marked by impaired synaptic transmission and delayed neural processing across retinal circuits. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The unsupervised machine learning pipeline successfully identified a composite genetic cluster that emerged as an influential predictor in terms of relative magnitude ( η p 2 ). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
News headlines from many nations, including the United States, Germany, Australia, and the United Kingdom, suggest that we are facing a loneliness epidemic (http://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/loneliness-research, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-faces-epidemic-of-lonely-and-isolated-seniors-a-876635.html, https://startsat60.com/health/new-survey-reveals-australias-loneliness-epidemic, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/tania-de-jong/loneliness-is-the-global-epidemic-of-our-times), leading to the important question of whether there is evidence to support such a claim and, if so, whether we are facing a public health crisis. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 300,000 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Randomisation: Allocated 1 : 1 : 1 through Trials Unit, independently of trial team. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 326 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Two hundred and sixty participants were randomised (173 intervention, 87 TAU). 5 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intention-to-treat analysis identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes [self-reported quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: mean difference 0.07, standard error (SE) 0.65; F = 0.48; p = 0.53]. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 488 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The current study was undertaken to unveil the protective effects of Luteolin, a natural flavonoid, against amyloid-beta (Aβ 1 - 42 )-induced neuroinflammation, amyloidogenesis, and synaptic dysfunction in mice. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FDA gave lecanemab (Leqembi) accelerated approval based on Phase 2 data showing it reduced amyloid plaque in the brain, ahead of full Phase 3 results. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision Evidence: early
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The FDA approved donanemab (Kisunla) as a monthly IV infusion for people with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia) with confirmed amyloid plaques. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The EMA's human medicines committee (CHMP) initially refused to approve lecanemab in the EU in July 2024, judging that its modest effect on cognitive decline did not outweigh ARIA risk in the broad early-Alzheimer's population studied. 3 key findings →
Design: regulatory decision 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 (3.7% 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 →