28,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
The first single-stage individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials provides evidence to support benefits of antihypertensive treatment in late-mid and later life to lower the risk of dementia. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 28,008 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 24 Evidence: high
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
Over a long period of observation, no evidence was found that a specific AHM drug class was more effective than others in lowering risk of dementia. 4 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Participants: 31 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Being married is associated with reduced risk of dementia than widowed and lifelong single people, who are also underdiagnosed in routine clinical practice. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
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
In the seven longitudinal studies assessing the effect of antihypertensive medication on cognitive impairment or cognitive decline, antihypertensive drugs appeared to be beneficial. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 1,346,176 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Among 12,327 patients who underwent randomization (6162 to the asundexian group and 6165 to the placebo group), the incidence of ischemic stroke was lower in the asundexian group than in the placebo group (6.2% vs. 8.4%; cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.84; P<0.001). 5 key findings →
Design: clinical trial Participants: 12,327 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A rare coding variant (rs72824905, p.P522R) conferring protection against Alzheimer's disease (AD) was identified in the gene encoding the enzyme phospholipase-C-γ2 (PLCG2) that is highly expressed in microglia. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 10,097 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Our results support the notion that antihypertensive treatment has beneficial effects on cognitive decline and prevention of dementia, and indicate that these effects may differ between drug classes with ARBs possibly being the most effective. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 15 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Female participants had a lower hazard of early-onset dementia compared with males (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61-0·80]). 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Participants: 544,442 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The GuidAge study is the largest study carried out in Europe on the prevention of AD. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,854 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A total of 450 111 participants were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 51.1 [9.8] years; 70.8% women) and followed up during a median (IQR) time of 14.9 (4.1) years. 5 key findings →
Design: cohort study Participants: 111 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Out of 3127 abstracts, 291 were included in the review. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
One hundred two (37.9%) participants were amyloid positive. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 269 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
This study shows that Hcy levels could modify the association between red blood cell n-3 PUFA and executive function. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Reducing the risk of dementia can halt the worldwide increase of affected people. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The CAIDE dementia and Framingham risk scores predict cognitive decline in late middle age but the Framingham risk scores may have an advantage over the dementia risk score for use in primary prevention for assessing risk of cognitive decline and targeting of modifiable risk factors. 3 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Interventions that have even quite modest effects at the individual level could drastically reduce the future burden of dementia associated with Alzheimer's disease at the population level. 1 key finding →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
LIBRA might be a useful tool to identify individuals for primary prevention interventions of dementia in midlife, and maybe in late life, but not in the oldest-old. 2 key findings →
Participants: 3,256 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Vaccination is increasingly acknowledged as an effective preventive measure not only against specific infections, but also for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The MAPT Study is the first preventive trial involving multidomain interventions. 2 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
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 28,180 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.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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 (3.7% 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 →