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
Research
28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) results in progressively worsening cognitive decline, leading to loss of functional ability, behavior/mood disturbances, institutionalization, and death. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The evidence to support a specific time frame for discontinuation of Alzheimer's disease treatment is limited. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Currently, five pharmacotherapeutic options are available to treat Alzheimer's disease: memantine; the three cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine; and combination treatments with memantine and one cholinesterase inhibitor. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
68/100
Currently available data indicate superior therapeutic effects of combination treatment for Alzheimer dementia with memantine and acetylcholine esterase inhibitors in certain clinical contexts. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The average age in our 2 groups was 81.1 years, and 61.4% of our population was female. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Rating Scale (iADRS) is a composite tool that combines scores from the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the AD Cooperative Study - instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-iADL). 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In a double-blind trial, 12 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease were treated for 6 weeks with placebo and 6 weeks with monosialoganglioside (GM1) (100 mg/day i.m.), which potentiates the actions of nerve growth factor. 1 key finding →
Participants: 12 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Several studies suggest that physical activity improves cognitive functions and reduces cognitive decline, whereas others did not find any evidence of a neuroprotective effect. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,697 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 7124 participants representative of Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older were included. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 7,124 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A total of 3,056 participants without diabetes treatment and 480 with diabetes treatment were included (mean age at baseline, 75.1 years; mean 7.5 years of follow-up). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,056 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Huntington's disease patients had a lower prevalence of hypertension compared with age-matched gene-negative controls. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 14,534 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The prevalence of dementia worldwide is growing at an alarming rate. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Trajectories of systolic BP were separated markedly around 25 to 45 years of age, with the group below the median of cognition score having higher levels of systolic BP than the group above the median. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 912 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Evidence suggests that bilingualism may contribute to neuroplasticity and cognitive reserve, allowing individuals to resist cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer's disease progression, although the idea remains controversial. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This study replicated research showing that education was positively associated with cognition at baseline. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 28,417 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the full cohort, 9.4% were diagnosed with major depression and 8.6% had chronically elevated depressive symptoms, both of which were related to adverse cognitive outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,965 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We report 1,136 cases of incident dementia among 4,166 individuals with nonmissing APOE status. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 4,166 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
68/100
At study entry, the mean (SD) age of the participants was 70 (SD, 8.9) years and 41% were males. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 555 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In the first year of follow-up, increased exposure to all air pollutants was associated with an increase in the use of CMHTs in a dose-response manner. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,024 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A health impact assessment (HIA) is an important tool for making informed decisions regarding the design and evaluation of environmental interventions. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
68/100
This study included 5646 participants (mean age 76 years, 65% female). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,646 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A nutritional approach could be a promising strategy to prevent or slow the progression of neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, since there is no effective therapy for these diseases so far. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Limbic predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC) is highly prevalent in late life and a common co-pathology with Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC). 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
68/100
Across cohorts, the main biomarker associated with α-synuclein positivity at baseline was higher levels of Aβ pathology (all p values ≤ 0.02), but not tau. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,315 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 28,180 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 →