Tri demonstrates significant multi-target neuroprotective effects in AD preclinical models. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is the second most common early-onset dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 25 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings highlight the importance of tailoring interventions to caregiver characteristics and outcome type. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder that leads to progressive cognitive decline and imposes a significant socio-economic burden. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
For these neurodegenerative dementias, we observed that the chronological age did not align with their biological age, which was determined based on hippocampal transcript levels (i.e., transcriptional age). 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Neurofilament light chain (NfL) conventionally reflects disability worsening in multiple sclerosis (MS), but does not necessarily imply MS-specific mechanisms and could be affected by biological or pathological aging, including Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. 4 key findings →
Participants: 83 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Neural autoantibodies are being increasingly detected in conjunction with neurodegenerative dementias such as Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD), yet their significance is not well clarified. 4 key findings →
Design: case report Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our framework highlights individual-, system-, and community-level factors and resources influencing person-centered eating and swallowing care for PLWD. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among PWD with Medicaid, out-of-pocket costs for nursing homes and assisted living facilities were significantly higher (60%) compared to those TM (33%) and MA (30%). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
BackgroundThere are limited studies quantifying the extent to which neighborhood deprivation affects mortality in individuals living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD).ObjectiveTo quantify to what extent neighborhood deprivation affects adverse outcomes in individuals living with AD/ADRD.MethodsWe identified individuals with AD/ADRD using a 15% random sample of national Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. 1 key finding →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Medicare-funded home health care (HH) is a crucial resource helping Persons with Dementia (PwD) meet their care needs while aging in place. 1 key finding →
Participants: 907,553 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 193,834 community-dwelling people with a new diagnosis of dementia, around 20% belonged to each material deprivation category. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Linear regression models showed that higher community deprivation on the ADI was associated with greater WMH volume, independently of age, sex, years of education, smoking, and time between study visits (beta=0.11, p =.028). 4 key findings →
Participants: 388 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.14. The effect of ADI score was also significant, β = -0.36, t = -2.30, p < .05; while the effect of RUCC, β = 0.06, t = 0.34, p = .73, and the interaction between ADI and RUCC, β = -0.001, t = 0.27, p = .99, were nonsignificant. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Lower objective SES was associated with poorer performance on all cognitive domains: episodic memory (β = 0.115, p = 0.003), executive function (β = 0.210, p 0.05). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher ADI was significantly associated with increased CRP (r=0.469, p = 0.002) and TREM-1 (r=0.316, p = 0.047). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 40 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
41/100
Plasma biomarkers demonstrate promise for improving diagnostic accuracy in diverse research cohorts. 3 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Vascular burden influences NfL levels, particularly in A- individuals at a symptomatic stage. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 421 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a common and increasing societal problem due to the extending human lifespan. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We observed differential cellular effects on β-amyloid, pTau217 and cognitive measures. 3 key findings →
Participants: 734 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The first SVD component accounted for 21.56%, 12.93%, 11.91% of the total co-variability between the pairs (cortical thickness, tau), (relative GM density, tau) and (absolute GM density, tau), respectively. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 222 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The association of Swiss Memory Clinics (SMC) provides intersocietal recommendations for the use of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in Switzerland. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Progress in understanding the complexity of Alzheimer's disease informs the search for combination therapies that can successfully prevent or substantially slow the progression of the disease. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This Medical News article discusses the safety and effectiveness of lecanemab and donanemab in treating mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer disease outside clinical trials. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In the base-case analysis from the healthcare perspective, SoC was more clinically effective than BSC with a cost per QALY of $5211. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 27,380 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.
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 27,380 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 →