Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
31,780 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Among the elderly, the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and multi-infarct dementia, as opposed to depression, increases steeply with age. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In the last 5 years significant progress has been made in potential dementia treatments, yet many of these treatments come with significant burdens on the healthcare system that may limit access to treatment and care for patients. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-two studies (RCTs, non-RCTs, single arm and prospective trials) were included (n = 6-977; mean age: 72.0 years; 66.9% male). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Twenty-eight caregivers completed the intervention, which increased caregiver mastery and decreased stress and burden. 5 key findings →
Design: open-label trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Synthesis of the results identified three overarching key principles and seven actionable practices for consideration when designing or delivering dementia education to the rural and remote health and aged care workforce. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Based on the stakeholder responses from fifteen providers and twenty community members, there was strong consensus in the need for local brain health services. 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The results presented are sufficiently encouraging to recommend that the DEMQOL instruments be used alongside a generic measure such as the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in future studies of interventions in dementia as there was evidence that they can be more sensitive for patients at the milder end of disease and some limited evidence that the person with dementia measure may be able to reflect deterioration. 2 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 644 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The “WarioWare: Move It!” intervention significantly improved physical flexibility, joint range of motion, motor coordination, hand dexterity, and cognitive function among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia residing in rural LTCFs. 5 key findings →
Participants: 232 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In SPRINT, intensive vs standard SBP control yielded a significantly larger 4-year absolute risk reduction in dementia among APOE ε4 carriers (−1.7%) than non-carriers (0.2%; P-interaction = .045); the relative-scale interactions were directionally consistent but not significant. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high
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
- Randomized / 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
- Multicenter 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 31,780 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 31,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66% of the library) and OpenAlex (16%), 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.
1,052 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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 →
Newest studies, as a dated timeline → Atom feed Where this research is being discussed: events