Significant study-site, specimen type, and batch effects were observed. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 604 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a public health priority for the 21st century. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 74,046 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were not significantly different at baseline (except for serum cholesterol level). 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among older adults without cognitive impairment or dementia, both an unfavorable lifestyle and high genetic risk were significantly associated with higher dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 383 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
With no effective treatments for cognitive decline or dementia, improving the evidence base for modifiable risk factors is a research priority. 1 key finding →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 48,522 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We also determined the extent to which sex, educational attainment, and apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (APOE*4) carrier status were associated with decline. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 42,170 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher adherence to a MedDiet was associated with lower dementia risk, independent of genetic risk, underlining the importance of diet in dementia prevention interventions. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 60,298 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 92 383 participants, 60 582 (65.6%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 56.4 (8.0) years. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 92,383 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing crystallised intelligence and fruit and vegetable consumption and eliminating depression and diabetes are likely to have the biggest impact on reducing the incidence of dementia, outweighing even the effect of removing the principal known genetic risk factor. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,433 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
These findings provide evidence for a relationship between all types of alcohol use and increased dementia risk. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 559,559 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
67/100
Cox regression and accelerated failure time models were used to investigate whether sex, apolipoprotein E genotype and e4 carriage were associated with amyloid onset age in all cohorts. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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 (3.6% 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 →