Elderly patients with AD hypovitaminosis D are at increased risk for hip fracture. 3 key findings →
Participants: 29 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Research
27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A high incidence of fractures, particularly of the hip, represents an important problem in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), who are prone to falls and have osteoporosis. 2 key findings →
Participants: 15 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The largest increase in the older adult population in U.S. history is something to celebrate—yet, at the same time, current and future trends signal that financial exploitation is, and will continue to be, a significant threat for older adults. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundThe brain age gap (BAG), the difference between neuroimaging-predicted and chronological age, captures inter-individual variation in brain aging. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 202 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
16/100
BackgroundEpidemiological studies increasingly associate several adult vaccinations with lower risk of Alzheimers disease (AD) and dementia, but the biological mechanisms underlying these observations remain unclear. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 192 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
BackgroundLebanon is undergoing substantial demographic and social change, with older adults comprising approximately 10% of the population. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,871 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
ObjectiveEffective strategies to prevent Alzheimers disease and related dementias (ADRD) are limited. 5 key findings →
Participants: 9,584 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Over a median follow-up of 13 years, 5,304 participants developed dementia. 4 key findings →
Participants: 151,832 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The exposome factors, such as diet, lifestyle, microbiome, chemical exposures and social exposome, shapes human health beyond genetic influences, but the mechanisms remain only partially understood. 1 key finding →
Participants: 449 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Alzheimer disease,* the most common cause of dementia, affects an estimated 6.5 million persons aged ≥65 years in the United States (1). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Identifying scalable, objective markers of dementia risk is essential for early prevention and intervention. 3 key findings →
Participants: 562 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
As the only central nervous system tissue that can be directly imaged non-invasively using widely available technology, the retina offers a uniquely accessible window into the brain. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
A robust method was developed to produce and optimize GST-Tau as a coating antigen for indirect ELISA. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Current Alzheimer’s disease (AD) immunotherapeutics face efficacy and safety limitations with antibody-based approaches. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Eligible studies reported MACE or dementia outcomes in adults ≥ 50 years for at least one of three intervention classes (RZV, SGLT2i, GLP-1 RA) versus placebo or active comparator, with follow-up ≥ 6 months. 5 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this nationwide cohort, probucol use was associated with substantially lower dementia risk than statins, supporting evaluation of probucol for repurposing in dementia prevention. 2 key findings →
Participants: 52,532 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Long-term metformin treatment is associated with a reduced risk of dementia and better memory performance among persons with pre-diabetes or T2D. Longer follow-up with more dementia cases is needed to confirm our findings. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,483 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
AD prevention must transcend the "geriatric disease" mindset. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Recruitment (88.0%) and protocol fidelity (100%) met or exceeded prespecified progression criteria, whereas retention and follow-up data availability were 59.1% (13/22), slightly below the predefined 60% criterion. 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
When stable individual differences are accounted for, depressive symptoms emerge as a stronger within-person temporal predictor of cognitive decline than physical activity. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Multidomain interventions have small but consistent beneficial effects on cognitive measures, suggesting the potential to reduce cognitive impairment and dementia risk. 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Participants: 23,209 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Of total 8,321 participants, 24.88% (2,070) developed cognitive impairment during a 10-year follow-up. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 8,321 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
16/100
Our findings reveal marked geographic variation in dementia risk factors, highlighting the need for region-specific prevention strategies. 4 key findings →
Participants: 40,000 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
All Big Five domains had prospective associations with multiple dementia risk factors and with cognitive impairment, cognitive function, and self-reported memory. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Vascular dementia (VaD) is a leading cause of cognitive decline with no disease-modifying therapies. 2 key findings →
Participants: 437,749 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
From across this tag
10 of the 859 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
- Insights for dementia risk reduction among lower SES adults in OECD countries: scoping review of interventions targeting multiple common health risk factors
- Statins for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease
- Individualized clinical management of patients at risk for Alzheimer's dementia
- Determinants of cognitive performance and decline in 20 diverse ethno-regional groups: A COSMIC collaboration cohort study
- Rare earth nanoparticles prevent retinal degeneration induced by intracellular peroxides
- Epidemiologic studies of modifiable factors associated with cognition and dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis
- Blood Pressure and Risks of Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 209 Prospective Studies
- Influence of the Mediterranean and Ketogenic Diets on Cognitive Status and Decline: A Narrative Review
- Metformin vs sulfonylurea use and risk of dementia in US veterans aged ≥65 years with diabetes
- A rapid scoping review on operationalizing cognitive and social activities in research on dementia risk reduction
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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.
1,032 records (3.8% 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 →