Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
67/100
CSF A beta(1-42) was the most sensitive biomarker for AD in the autopsy cohort of CSF samples: receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.913 and sensitivity for AD detection of 96.4%. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
During 3697 person-years of follow-up (mean per person, 3.6 years), dementia developed in 30 of the 1015 participants. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,015 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Researchers performed a genome-wide association study of clinically diagnosed Alzheimer's disease and disease-by-proxy. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), Lewy body diseases (LBD), and the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia (ALS-FTD) spectrum are defined by the accumulation of specific misfolded protein aggregates. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 2,600 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The chronological progression of brain atrophy over decades, from pre-symptomatic to dementia stages, has never been formally depicted in Alzheimer's disease. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,512 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CSF-soluble misfolded α-synuclein aggregates (seeds) are readily detected in people with Parkinson's disease by α-synuclein seed amplification assay (synSAA), but identification of seeds associated with multiple system atrophy for diagnostic purposes has proven elusive. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 80 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
An overall rating of the quality of evidence was assigned by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Combining physical exercise with cognitive training is a popular intervention in dementia prevention trials and guidelines. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Mediterranean-style diet (MedDiet) involves substantial intake of fruits, vegetables, and fish, and a lower consumption of dairy, red meat, and sugars. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall estimates of the treatment effect were calculated by using a fixed-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured by using a standard chi-squared statistic. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this large study of older women, we observed no association of the Mediterranean diet with cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Participants: 6,174 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cognitive decline is a rapidly increasing public health concern. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
67/100
Study objectives To investigate the effect of an eight-week, home-based, personalized, computerized cognitive training program on sleep quality and cognitive performance among older adults with insomnia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 51 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
CCT was most effective in cognitive rehabilitation, particularly in the subdomain of memory. 2 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We demonstrated the higher short-term improvement of cognitive functions scores in individuals of the MedDiet plus low dose of extravirgin olive oil rather than MedDiet alone. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In older adults with multiple dementia risk factors, group-based CCT is a safe and effective intervention for enhancing overall cognition, memory and processing speed. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 80 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Overall, 68 studies were included in the meta-analyses. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In AD a clinical recommendation can be made for NEURO-AD TM system and for high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) as probably effective protocols (B-level of evidence) and for anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC as a possibly effective. 3 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our findings suggest that VR training is an effective treatment for both people with MCI and dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The intervention effect was found in delayed verbal memory. 4 key findings →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is associated with cognitive declines leading to mild cognitive impairments or Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
This population-based study in community-dwellers aged 70 years or over suggested that multidomain intervention and n3 PUFA supplementation have not significant effects on cognitive function change in frail older adults with memory complaints. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Our analyses support that MNPI could improve the global cognition in older adults with MCI. 1 key finding →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Effective learning in old age, particularly in those at risk for dementia, is essential for prolonging independent living. 2 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 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.
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 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 →