31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Black race was associated with greater dementia risk even after adjustment for education and other potential confounders. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings suggest that poor chewing ability is associated with cognitive impairment or dementia in the elderly living in rural area. 4 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 295 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Six standardized published measures of cognitive function were evaluated as screens of dementia in a sample of 164 (83 black, 81 white) community residents aged 65 and over selected from the Duke University EPESE (Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly), a biracial cohort of 4164 residents in a five county area of piedmont North Carolina. 5 key findings →
Participants: 164 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our results suggest that efforts to reduce racial disparities in underdiagnosis are warranted. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The prevalence rate of dementia was low in this Chinese population. 3 key findings →
Participants: 1,521 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Overall, MMSE scores exhibited ceiling effects, poor test-retest reliability, limited sensitivity to subtle brain abnormalities, and a high rate of intrusion elsewhere in the neuropsychological battery. 5 key findings →
Participants: 99 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A diagnosis of dementia confers an increased risk of either death or further admission within the following 12 months, highlighting the need for better cognitive screening in the acute setting, as well as targeted intervention such as comprehensive geriatric assessment. 3 key findings →
Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Overall, the CDT may be as effective as the MMSE or CASI as a first-level dementia screen for clinical use in multiethnic, multilingual samples of older adults. 3 key findings →
Participants: 295 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There is a shortage of adequate screening instruments for dementia in poorly educated populations and non-English-speaking groups. 1 key finding →
Participants: 5,126 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The PRISM-PC questionnaire captures primary care patients' acceptance, perceived harms, and perceived benefits of dementia screening. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 315 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia appear not to vary widely across the centres examined in this study, which provides stable estimates by age and sex for AGECAT O3 and above, and norms for MMSE. 2 key findings →
Participants: 550,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Our data support the use of population-based cutpoints over standard cutoff scores, in that the global scale at the conventional cutoff was less sensitive than the battery at the same percentile, and because adequate norms do not exist for tests such as those in the battery. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,367 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In individuals without a prior diagnosis of cognitive impairment, the prevalence of dementia was low, but the prevalence of CIND was high. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Previous studies have indicated a prevalence of dementia in older admissions of ∼42% in a single London teaching hospital, and 21% in four Queensland hospitals. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These data suggest that older adults in rural communities may be underdiagnosed with ADRD, and/or diagnosed at later stages of dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The median age of participants was 79 years, 69% (31 of 45) were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity, and 60% (27 of 45) had attended at least some college. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A preplanned analysis of data collected during the second (1991) and the third (1995) follow-up of the Italian rural cohorts of the FINE Study (Finland, Italy, the Netherlands Elderly). 1 key finding →
Participants: 247 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Some studies have suggested that people with a high educational level have a lower risk of developing dementia compared to people with a low educational level. 4 key findings →
Participants: 1,022 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Future educational supports for GPs need to be developed which concentrate on these areas. 1 key finding →
Participants: 300 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is an important cause of morbidity in the geriatric population in this community, where families take responsibility for the care of relatives with dementia. 3 key findings →
Participants: 2,067 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Dementia is under-diagnosed to a greater extent among ethnic minorities in the age group 60 years and older but is over-diagnosed in the age group younger than 60 years. 3 key findings →
Participants: 219 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Cognitive assessment is a basic element for dementia diagnosis. 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
When using ethnic group-specific norms, NP and functional abilities predicted diagnosis in both groups with no significant differences but BPS was only significant in Hispanics. 5 key findings →
Participants: 444 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Several recent autopsy studies suggest that senile dementia of Lewy body type (SDLT) may be the second most common neuropathologic cause of dementia in the elderly, accounting for 7 to 30% of all cases. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.
1,048 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