As there is currently no cure for dementia, there is an urgent need for preventive strategies. 5 key findings →
Design: case-control study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
A combination of modifiable vascular risk factors in midlife is highly predictive of the likelihood of dementia decades later. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Participants: 2,767 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and angina were associated with a greater rate of decline and may represent modifiable risk factors for secondary prevention in Alzheimer disease. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Evidence that short-term, single-component physical activity interventions promote cognitive function and prevent cognitive decline or dementia in older adults is largely insufficient. 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
In older adults with normal cognition, training improves cognitive performance in the domain trained. 1 key finding →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Main results Four trials including 15,936 hypertensive subjects were identified. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A diagnosis of COPD is associated with an increased risk for MCI, particularly NA-MCI. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,425 Evidence: moderate
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
Our findings provide robust evidence supporting the protective effect of the Mediterranean diet against stroke. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, as well as models of care for fracture prevention. 5 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
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
An overall rating of the quality of evidence was assigned by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. 3 key findings →
Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is associated with cognitive declines leading to mild cognitive impairments or Alzheimer disease. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The results from our meta-analysis suggest that the incidence of falls of older adults living in nursing homes is high, and the risk factors for falls are various. 2 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Modifiable risk factors identified in this study, especially those with high-level evidence, should be considered in dementia prevention. 2 key findings →
Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Brief Report15 September 1991Postmenopausal Estrogen and Prevention BiasElizabeth Barrett-Connor, MDElizabeth Barrett-Connor, MDAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-115-6-455 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptIn the last decade many investigators reported that postmenopausal women taking estrogen were at reduced risk for cardiovascular disease compared with women not taking estrogen (1). 3 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The beta-site amyloid precursor protein cleaving enzyme-1 (BACE-1) initiates the generation of amyloid-β (Aβ), and the amyloid cascade leading to amyloid plaque deposition, neurodegeneration, and dementia in Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%), 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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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