In this study, several factors, mostly modifiable, were associated with a higher risk of YOD. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 356,052 Evidence: moderate
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.
Sleep fragmentation in older adults is associated with incident AD and the rate of cognitive decline. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 97 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This review revealed a paucity of long-term studies on the relationship between physical activity and the incidence of NCD. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 288,724 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Sleep dysregulation is a feature of dementia but it remains unclear whether sleep duration prior to old age is associated with dementia incidence. 4 key findings →
Participants: 7,959 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
71/100
Using stratification with simply assessed markers, it is now not only possible, but practical to include patients with RBD in neuroprotective trials against Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, and dementia with Lewy bodies. 3 key findings →
Design: prospective cohort Participants: 89 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
High dietary intake of vitamin C and vitamin E may lower the risk of Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 5,395 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology have been investigated intensively as markers for AD-related neurodegeneration. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 158 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The pooled sample comprised 4657 participants (30% women) aged ≥ 60 years (mean age was 74 years at sleep assessment). 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,374 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
62/100
This study included 1526 early adult-life (mean [SD] age, 36.7 [4.7] years; 821 [53.8%] female), 1943 midlife (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [5.8] years; 1010 [52.0%] female), and 885 late-life (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [4.5] years; 473 [53.4%] female) participants. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 1,526 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Higher cognitive reserve was associated with better cognition, fewer functional difficulties, more physical activity and better quality of life at baseline but was associated with accelerated cognitive decline and greater dependence over time. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,537 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our findings in CPAP+ participants suggest that CPAP treatment of SDB may delay progression of cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →
Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 2,218 participants, 237 (11%) developed dementia in the period 1992/3 to 2015/6. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,218 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
At least 45% of dementia and 60% of stroke cases are due to modifiable risk factors and could in part be prevented through healthy behavior. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,478 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a median follow-up of 13.5 years, 1453 dementia cases were identified. 5 key findings →
Participants: 131,209 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
In contrast to newborns, who spend 16-20 h in sleep each day, adults need only about sleep daily. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a median follow-up period of 10.44 years, 725 participants developed incident dementia. 5 key findings →
Participants: 104,572 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
• This analysis consists of 567 participants revealed that vitamin B12 deficiency, not folate or vitamin B1 deficiency was associated with hippocampal atrophy detected by MRI-VSRAD analysis. • Vitamin B12 deficiency was associated with hyperhomocysteinemia. • Clear correlations were observed between hippocampal atrophy and vitamin B12 value. 4 key findings →
Participants: 323 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.
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