27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Both participant and study partner CFI increased over the duration of the study indicating worsening cognitive functioning. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,147 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our pilot studies (National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1A) have shown that MHB is feasible, acceptable, and associated with improvement in lifestyle behavior and cognitive outcomes. 4 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 225 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Currently available literature shows limited information on aging in RGNDs, with relatively many reports of young-onset dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is heterogenous at the molecular level. 4 key findings →
Participants: 419 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Knowledge gained from cohort studies has dramatically advanced both public and precision health. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 254 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The combinations of pathologies of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias associated with cognitive and motor decline and their onsets of associations varied; only tau tangles, Parkinson's disease pathology, and macroinfarcts were associated with decline of all three phenotypes. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Depression, socioeconomic status, hearing handicap, loneliness, education, smoking, tinnitus, little exercise, small social network, stroke, diabetes, and hypertension were all associated with impairments in at least one cognitive measure. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,327 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive, degenerative disorder of the central nervous system. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurodegenerative pathologies such as Alzheimer disease neuropathologic change (ADNC), Lewy body disease (LBD), limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC), and cerebrovascular disease (CVD) frequently coexist, but little is known about the exact contribution of each pathology to cognitive decline and dementia in subjects with mixed pathologies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,262 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among the 77 papers reviewed, few addressed early stages of dementia specifically. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mean annual costs for individuals with clinically diagnosed AD were SEK 99,906, SEK 290,972, SEK 479,524, and SEK 795,617 in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild, moderate, and severe AD. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort Participants: 95,853 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are likely to be most beneficial when initiated in the presymptomatic phase. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We constructed models for MCI and mild dementia that predict MMSE over time. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 961 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Across the cohort of 212 individuals with SCD+ (M(Age) = 69.17 years, F 42.45%), 258 individuals with MCI (M(Age) = 72.93, F 43.80%), and 195 individuals with dementia (M(Age) = 74.07, F 48.72%), no main effect of education (ß = 0.52, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.58), but a significant education-by-group interaction on CL values, was found ( p = 0.024) using linear regression modeling. 1 key finding →
Participants: 212 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Adults with Down syndrome demonstrate striatum-first amyloid accumulation with [ 11 C]PiB PET imaging, which has not been replicated with [ 18 F]florbetapir (FBP). 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 175 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
It remains unclear which risk factors accelerate brain atrophy along with a progression from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 185 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Extensive evidence shows the beneficial effect of adhering to a regular physical activity (PA) pattern on brain health. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 75,629 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Social determinants of health (SDHs) are the primary drivers of preventable health inequities, and the associations between SDHs and health outcomes among individuals with type 2 diabetes remain unclear. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A summary measure of γ-secretase activity (γ-secretase composite [GSC]) was calculated for each variant and compared with clinical history-derived AAO using correlation analyses. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In 320 patients, baseline plasma NfL levels were negatively associated with global cognition (β=-1.28 (-1.81 ; -0.75) P < 0.001), memory (β=-1.48 (-2.38 ; -0.59), P = 0.001), language (β=-1.72(-2.49 ; -0.95) P < 0.001), praxis (β=-2.02 (-2.91 ; -1.13) P < 0.001) and executive functions (β=-0.81, P < 0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 158 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
After adjusting for age, health status, and young adult general cognitive ability, plasma NfL level was only significantly associated with processing speed and white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, but not with other cognitive or neuroimaging measures. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 969 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We detected a significant correlation between AßX-42/X-40 in plasma and CSF (r = 0.473). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer disease (AD) may facilitate testing of historically under-represented groups. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
There were no associations among steps or TRIMP with plasma biomarkers or cognition. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
HIGHLIGHTS: We demonstrated the diagnostic performance of qLRP in Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 107 Evidence: low
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →