Social participation may theoretically decrease risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 32,715 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Research
31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
63/100
The sample included 3 329 977 beneficiaries (2 126 290 [63.9%] female, 33 887 [1.0%] Asian, 354 771 [10.7%] Black, 61 515 [1.8%] Hispanic, 2 831 391 [85.0%] White, and 891 815 [26.8%] dual eligible for Medicaid). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Age- and education-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for ADRD increased as neighborhood disadvantage increased, to 1.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.91) in the most disadvantaged quintile compared to the least disadvantaged quintile, with a significant linear trend (p = 0.012). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,915 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The mean age of participants was 77.1 years (SD = 7.6), and 2779 were women (weighted % = 56.7). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,238 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 844 eligible individuals were consecutively approached, 294 consented to participate, and 204 completed the study (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [5.1] years; 127 women [62.3%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 127 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
4,824 patients seen at the memory clinic between 2008-2018 were included in this study (mean age 72.7 [standard deviation 11.0] years, 2,712 [56%] female, 543 [11%] Black). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 4,824 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among 1614 older adults (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [8.7] years; 980 women [60.7%]), 853 were Mexican American (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [7.9] years; 566 women [66.4%]), and 761 were non-Hispanic White (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [8.7] years; 414 women [54.4%]). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 280 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The study included 234 patients (mean 71 years, 42% female). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 234 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In cognitively unimpaired (CU) adults at baseline, the risk for progression to dementia increased for every decile increase in the ADI state ranking (hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval (1.01-1.11), P = .01). 5 key findings →
Participants: 4,699 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Thirty-two percent of residents had DNR directives, whereas less than 2% had DNH directives. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,962,742 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
57/100
(n = 2,392) had a mean age of 74.4 years, 60.4% were female, and 17.1% were of self-reported Black race. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,392 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
On average, participants were aged 63 years and had 16 years of education. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 100 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There were 13,145 individuals with risk factor data between 2015 and 2018 (51.1% aged 18-44, 31.0% aged 45-64, and 17.9% aged ≥65 years; 51.5% female after survey-weighting). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 13,145 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
There has been increasing attention to the role of hearing loss as a potentially modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Among non-Latino Whites, ADI was associated with dementia incidence (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.15). 4 key findings →
Participants: 18,103 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Increasing neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased risk of EHR-documented dementia diagnosis or dementia-related death (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.76, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-1.84) after adjusting for age and sex. 4 key findings →
Participants: 253,421 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher ADI was significantly associated with lower MMSE score. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 469 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Since older adults spend significant time in their neighborhood environment, environmental factors such as neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, high racial segregation, low healthy food availability, low access to recreation, and minimal social engagement may have adverse effects on cognitive function and increase susceptibility to dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 542 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Thirteen percent of care recipients had at least 1 ACSH. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Perceived greater access to greenspaces (estimate = 2.83, 95% CI = 1.40–4.26) and greater time in neighborhood greenspaces were associated with greater RI scores (estimate = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.24–3.35). 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 162 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
During the COVID-19 pandemic, home health agencies (HHAs) discharges following acute hospitalizations increased. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 426,766 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
= 0.041). Socioeconomic status and residential area are associated with long-term survival in patients with EOD. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 3,825 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ADI groups differed by sex, ethnoracial background, and MMSE scores. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 755 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Exposure to high neighborhood‐level socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with negative health outcomes. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 645 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 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.
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 31,380 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