Of the 7342 total sample, 4348 participants (60.3%) were women. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 7,342 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Differential eligibility may contribute to underrepresentation of some minoritized racial and ethnic groups in early AD trials. 2 key findings →
Participants: 156 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The neuropsychologic test battery from the Uniform Data Set (UDS) of the Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC) program of the National Institute on Aging consists of brief measures of attention, processing speed, executive function, episodic memory, and language. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 2603 men with nonmetastatic PCa (mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.1] years) were followed up, and 1346 deaths were documented, including 356 (24.6%) from CVD and 197 (14.6%) from PCa. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,603 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 44 844 patients invited to the APT Webstudy, the mean (SD) age was 64.7 (10.1) years, 25 447 (56.8%) were women, 25 044 (55.8%) had Medicaid insurance, 11 347 (25.3%) were Hispanic/Latino, 9526 (21.2%) were non-Hispanic Asian, 6044 (13.5%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 12 109 (27%) were non-Hispanic White. 2 key findings →
Participants: 844 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
We included 147,986 participants (Chinese [n = 6,034], Filipino [n = 4,649], Japanese [n = 3,099], South Asian [n = 996], non-Latino White [n = 133,208]); the mean baseline age ranged from 69 to 72 years, and the percentage of female participants ranged from 40% to 63% across groups. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 6,034 Evidence: moderate
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
Under Bronfenbrenner's macrosystem framework, we highlight key quantitative and qualitative studies linking S/SDOH with AD/ADRD, identify scientific gaps in the literature, and propose guidance for future research. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
55/100
No large-scale characterizations of neurofilament light chain (NfL) have been conducted in diverse populations. 1 key finding →
Participants: 890 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
54/100
Of 31 028 older adults in MEPS, 5184 (10%) were African American; 146 (<1%) American Indian or Alaska Native; 1043 (3%) Asian (Indian, Chinese, or Filipino); 5346 (10%) Latino; 690 (2%) Other Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander; and 18 617 (75%) were White. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) are characterized by the aging neurovascular unit being confronted with and failing to cope with biological insults due to systemic and cerebral vascular disease, proteinopathy including Alzheimer's biology, metabolic disease, or immune response, resulting in cognitive decline. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
53/100
A location dynamics model and ADRD-focused future directions are offered for guiding rural practitioners, researchers, and policymakers in mitigating rural disparities. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
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
AD is a neurodegenerative disease, and its frequency is often reported to be higher for women than men: almost two-thirds of patients with AD are women. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
Racial disparities in dementia may be reduced by prevention and management of disease and promoting educational attainment among blacks and Hispanics. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
51/100
Significant research gaps remain. 4 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
AD is a public health epidemic, which seriously impacts cognition, mood and daily activities; however, one type of activity, exercise, has been shown to alter these states. 3 key findings →
Participants: 104 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The past century was a period of increasing life expectancy throughout the age range. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Among women, foreign-born Hispanics have higher odds of CIND and dementia than Whites. 4 key findings →
Participants: 19,099 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
50/100
The characteristics of the cohort revealed significant groupwise differences in age, education, sex, and cognitive diagnosis. 5 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The sample (n = 26,728) was equally distributed across gender (55.1% women) and education (50.8% completed HS/GED diploma), and 30% came from under-represented racial/ethnic groups. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 26,728 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA), there are more than 70 associated genes or genetic areas associated with Alzheimer’s when 20 years ago, we knew of only four (Hodes, 2022). 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 42 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The findings from the AHEAD Study screening process and longitudinal data from the LEARN Study are providing critical data to guide future prevention trial design. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,000 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher ARTS score was associated (all ps < 0.01) with incident MCI (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29), dementia (HR = 1.33), and stroke (HR = 1.52) and with diastolic/systolic blood pressure, self-reported hypertension, claudication, congestive heart failure, smoking, and glomerular filtration rate in the combined sample. 5 key findings →
Participants: 707 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
- 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.
1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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
Last updated