Because they have a high prevalence of several common diseases and chronic conditions, Danish centenarians are not healthy. 1 key finding →
Participants: 276 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Plasma levels of Aβ oligomers could be assessed using MDS, which might be a simple, noninvasive, and accessible assay for evaluating brain amyloid deposition related to AD pathology. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Circulating long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) might serve as biomarkers for different pathological conditions. 5 key findings →
Participants: 45 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood biomarkers have emerged as accessible, cost-effective, and highly promising tools for advancing the diagnostics of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
While blood-based tests are readily available for various conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and common cancers, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases lack an early blood-based screening test that can be used in primary care. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The combination BBBM with MMSE is projected to increase the efficiency and value of the triage process for DMT eligibility. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Plasma Aβ ratios in this study are a potential biomarker for brain Aβ deposition and therefore, for preclinical AD. 2 key findings →
Participants: 32 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In summary, specific biomarkers for AD-related pathologies allow accurate clinical diagnosis of AD based on pathobiological parameters. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Biological aging is the correlated decline of multi-organ system integrity central to the etiology of many age-related diseases. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The primary Aβ-based blood biomarker funnels individuals with suspected AD for subsequent validation of the diagnosis by structure-based combined analysis of the CSF biomarkers Aβ and tau. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Despite challenges, current literature and practice support implementation of telemedicine assessments for patients with cognitive impairment. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains, and their achievements were stable after 6 months. 4 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results underline the importance of social interaction and a positive mood for a higher QoL. 4 key findings →
Participants: 115 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Trans-diagnostic, domain- or symptom-focused approaches have been heralded as advancing psychiatric research, but relatively few clinical research programmes have been undertaken to leverage their potential. 1 key finding →
Participants: 72 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There is a considerable delay in the diagnosis of dementia, which may reduce the effectiveness of available treatments. 1 key finding →
Participants: 20 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
45/100
Careful design and user-testing should be made a priority in the development of computerized assessment interfaces, as well as reevaluating the cognitive assessment process to minimize patient anxiety and discomfort. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, this review corroborates the promising utilization of LLMs to positively impact dementia care by boosting cognitive abilities, enriching social interaction, and supporting caregivers. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This case highlights potential long-term neurodegenerative outcomes in retired professional National Football League players subjected to repeated mild traumatic brain injury. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
APOE4 is the strongest genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease 1-3 . 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Health risk factors such as body mass index (BMI) and serum cholesterol are associated with many common diseases. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The human brain vasculature is of great medical importance: its dysfunction causes disability and death 1 , and the specialized structure it forms-the blood-brain barrier-impedes the treatment of nearly all brain disorders 2,3 . 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The identification of subjects at high risk for Alzheimer's disease is important for prognosis and early intervention. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A genome-wide, whole brain approach to investigate genetic effects on neuroimaging phenotypes for identifying quantitative trait loci is described. 4 key findings →
Participants: 818 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We use a genome-wide association of 1 million parental lifespans of genotyped subjects and data on mortality risk factors to validate previously unreplicated findings near CDKN2B-AS1 , ATXN2/BRAP , FURIN/FES , ZW10 , PSORS1C3 , and 13q21.31, and identify and replicate novel findings near ABO , ZC3HC1 , and IGF2R . 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 →